On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 04:38:15PM -0600, Klaus Weide wrote:
> > > [kw: ...] Should we encourage
> > > translators to update their translations now? How?
> > This is an unfortunate side effect of Lynx being numbered in a different
> > style than other software, which caused the language coordinator to
> > assign 2.8.3 to the 2.8.2 message file. I am cc'ing Fran�ois Pinard so
> > he can forward this to the teams.
> >
> > We have provided a URL for the translation teams to pick up the
> > developing version with a GNU-based subdirectory scheme, but I'm not
> > aware this has been adopted.
>
> Cuuld you explain this sentence? Especially, what is a "GNU-based
> subdirectory scheme"?
Since I've worked on Lynx, each "version" unpacks into a subdirectory
called, for example, lynx2-8-3. Thus, it is hard for some automated
program to notice that a new version has been created. Typical GNU
software is numbered with the version, as in lynx-2.8.3.7. Each change
in the rightmost number indicates a new relaese or version. Thus, the
translation project chose to publish lynx "2.8.3" templates, even
though the Lynx developers understand that 2.8.3 doesn't exist yet.
What I do is unpack the Lynx distribution, rename the subdirectory to
include the "dev" number, then repack it as a tar.gx file. I also
include the latest message catalogs I'm aware of.
I'm not concerned that this is being generally ignored. I expect to
collect "final" 2.8.3 translations for some time after the real
release. Lynx distributions will probably be done with and without the
message catalogs, as they are now.
------
<http://www.cs.indiana.edu/picons/db/users/us/md/lib/bcpl/jspath/face.xbm>
<http://www.altavista.com/cgi-bin/query?q=%22web+home+for+jim+spath%22>
Marvin the Paranoid Android says:
The first ten million years, they were the worst. The second ten
million they were the worst too. The next ten million I didn't enjoy
at all. After that I went into a bit of a decline.....
