daichi at xfce.org
Sat Mar 25 06:53:47 CET 2006
Probably you were not speaking about yourself,
On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:32:41 +1030
Clytie Siddall wrote:
> > 2. No need to add new language code at the toplevel
> > directory (a translators can add it to this file in the
> > same level).
> Does this mean that each time we _add_ a translation for a
> module (not updating an existing translation), we need to
> edit this file to show our language code?
Yes it does.
> This is similar to what is done at Gnome: we edit the
> configure.in or configure.ac file, placing our language
> code in the alphabetical list in the ALL_LINGUAS line.
In the current Xfce, adding `vi' is required at XDT_I18N()
in the $(topdir)/configure.ac, or rather it's common when
(glib-)gettext is used for i18n.
> I've never been keen on this Gnome process: firstly, it's
> not obvious, so you can work hard on translations, not
> realize this editing has to be done, and end up with your
> translations not used, and secondly, I get very nervous
> when editing that configure.xx file: I'd hate to mess
> it up.
I see your point, and at least in Xfce, I'll add the missing
language codes as soon as possible whenever I find, so you
shall never see your not installed translations if I don't
get a starvation or am not thrown into the hell-busy work.
On a side note, where you'd put your code is
XDT_I18N([ca de el ... vi ...])
ca de el ... vi ...
at any rate, it's the same thing while the place/name of the
file is different.
> So anything that separates the translation-adding process,
> and the other essential source commands, but is obvious and
> easy to do, gets my vote. :)
The problem using po/LINGUAS is that it still needs
when a new code gets added in that file while I've been
expecting auto updating for Makefile as well (it's not
that easy, requires re-patch for the po/Makefile.in.in).
Language Codes: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/iso639.htm
Country Codes: http://www.ics.uci.edu/pub/ietf/http/related/iso3166.txt
More information about the Xfce-i18n