Re: automake and i18n
> Hi, > beginning with version 0.13, GNU gettext has full support for Perl > scripts, with libintl-perl (http://search.cpan.org/dist/libintl-perl/) > there is a stable runtime environment for gettext like message > translation in Perl, and with yours truly there is somebody available > that would volunteer to make the necessary modifications for > internationalizing automake. > It is possible to do the internationalization in such a way, that > automake would still run without libintl-perl being installed. > License problems should not be an issue, libintl-perl is distributed > under the LGPL. As for the required Perl version, Perl 5.004 is > sufficient for libintl-perl. > Comments? Do you know any maintainer that does not know English? In other words, what's the use? Will you translate the documentation too?
Re: automake and i18n
Hi, Akim Demaille wrote: > It is possible to do the internationalization in such a way, that > automake would still run without libintl-perl being installed. > License problems should not be an issue, libintl-perl is distributed > under the LGPL. As for the required Perl version, Perl 5.004 is > sufficient for libintl-perl. > Comments? Do you know any maintainer that does not know English? In other words, what's the use? Will you translate the documentation too? Why are other GNU developer packages like "make" or "gcc" internationalized? I cannot really answer you that question, but it wouldn't surprise me if somebody found it useful to internationalize the "make" utility. What is the use of an internationalized automake? On Windows systems, dialog boxes like Do you really want to quit? [Oui|Non] are always good for a laugh. Is there a fundamental difference to this one? bash$ chmod 555 . bash$ LANG=fr_FR automake automake: cannot remove ./Makefile.in: Permission non accordée I *do* know developers that do not unset $LANG, $LC_ALL and $LC_MESSAGES. The GNU coding standards also say something about i18n. Please read the first paragraph of http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_30.html#SEC30. I do not make a fetish of such standards, but I have the impression that there is a relatively broad consens today on this particular point in the free software community. As far as missing translations of documentation is concerned, the general answer is: Nobody volunteered to translate the docs yet. IMHO that is not a real argument against internationalization of the software. These are my points, the decision is up to you. I will not yell for extra work again. ;-) Ciao Guido -- Imperia AG, Development Leyboldstr. 10 - D-50354 Hürth - http://www.imperia.net/
Re: automake and i18n
> Hi, > Akim Demaille wrote: >> > It is possible to do the internationalization in such a way, that >> > automake would still run without libintl-perl being installed. >> > License problems should not be an issue, libintl-perl is distributed >> > under the LGPL. As for the required Perl version, Perl 5.004 is >> > sufficient for libintl-perl. >> > Comments? >> Do you know any maintainer that does not know English? In other >> words, what's the use? Will you translate the documentation too? > Why are other GNU developer packages like "make" or "gcc" > internationalized? Because they are already heavily documented elsewhere. The two precise examples you chose are GNU versions of world wide spread utilities. But I hear your point, I just beg to differ on the relative importance. And I'm waiting for requests to internationalize configure, and the messages embedded in the Makefile rules :)
Re: automake and i18n
Akim Demaille wrote: > But I hear your point, I just beg to differ on the relative > importance. I tend to agree. It's more important to make automake support po/ directories in an easier way _in_general_ (and get rid of gettextize). A proposal in this direction is at http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/automake/2003-11/msg00046.html Bruno
