[Minimizing Fedora] Langpacks for Firefox.

[Martin Sourada]

Christopher Aillon napsal(a):
> Martin Sourada wrote:
>> Well, IMO it's not ONLY an implementation detail. Most of applications
>> have
>> locales in /usr/share/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/app-name.mo. Why should
>> firefox be
>> different?
> 
> Because the system doesn't work for it.  The po system works great for
> GNOME applications where the translators are heavily using Linux and
> don't necessarily mind looking through source files to make changes. The
> sources for any individual application don't change as much as the
> sources for Firefox does.  The .po file would be large and any change to
> the source coupled with a language change would make it extremely hard
> to track down precisely what needs an updated translation without
> tracking down source changelogs and even then it would not be easy.  The
> majority of people writing Firefox translations run Windows and have no
> technology background whatsoever.  The .po system just does not work for
> the project, so please don't try to force them to use it.
> 
I do not try to force them to use it. I write it in next sentence:
>> Either it doesn't work this way, or you have other reason to do it
>> other way. 

>> If you put the *.mo files in LC_MESSAGES you will handle
>> locales IMO
>> properly, firefox will boot faster because the locales won't be
>> handled by it as
>> extensions BUT will it work this way?
> 
> I can do this another way but that is not the solution.  They don't
> _have_ to be in extensions but it much easier to do so.  The real
> solution is to fix firefox to not be so slow here.  Stop bringing up
> browser bugs to the discussion.
> 
OK, so should be bugzilla filled against it, or it has been done?

>> then you agree with firefox developers
> 
> I am a Firefox developer, so there is always at least one that I agree
> with.
> 
I'm sorry, I didn't know that, yet though I didn't wrote it, I was thinking
about most of firerox developers.

>> Well, I overdo it a bit with use of word proper, yet, firefox handle
>> it as an
>> extension and that make the extension list grow and to check for
>> compatibility
>> whenever you upgrade to new version.
> 
> And some things are mistranslated and the browser hangs when I use
> flash.  These are just bugs.  They are irrelevant to this discussion on
> packaging langpacks.  Please stop pretending they are.
> 
Then what do you think is relevant? I don't see there other reasons than these.

>> I don't mind if I have tens of directories
>> under /usr/share/locale, but quite dislike that I have tens of
>> extension in
>> clean firefox install.
> 
> Good to know.
> 
>> OK, you say it is in xpi, because it is too big without
>> compression,
> 
> No, I said it is in .xpi because it is the format that works best for
> the project.  The fact that it is compressed is a bonus.  I personally
> don't care how big they are.  I'm not the person who started the thread
> because of things being "too big."
> 
Ok, misunderstood you at first. Sorry for that.

>> then, why not split it from the main package?
> 
> Many reasons have been provided by me, and others.
> 
>> IMO it is reasonable
>> to either have firefox locales among other locales (i.e. in
>> /usr/share/locale),
>> or have firefox langpacks in separate packages
> 
> So you are essentially saying that it is reasonable to install
> translations in the main package and in separate packages.  I already
> picked the former.
> 
Well, yes, but not blindly. It's OK when translations are inside the package,
but as I looked into some of the *.xpi, I see these are not only translation for
the first and they are handled as extensions for the second. In this (and other
similar cases like OOo) I think it is better to have it separated from the main
package. But that's only my opinion. If majority of people are against it, I am
OK with the current state.

> -- 
> Fedora-maintainers mailing list
> Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
> 

Martin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 249 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070428/67dc3b80/attachment.sig>