Another question

[Tommy Reynolds]

Uttered "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>, spake thus:

> > > Would it be easier for translators if we
> > > moved to using "rpm-info-en.xml", "rpm-info-de.xml", etc.?  Comments
> > > welcome. 
> > I think it would be more intuitive... than check for comments or tags in
> > the xml file...
> I am having some second thoughts about this.
>
> Tommy normally catches me when I think up Bad Ideas, so I could be
> wrong in thinking we need to change course.

Busted, again ;-)

I would vastly prefer to use a single rpm-info.xml file and have all
portions of that be authoritative.  Otherwise you are faced with
having some rpm-info files be more equal than others, on a
stanza-by-stanza basis.  Notice in the fdpsh and Makefile.common
changes I've just checked in there must be the notion of a "primary
language" for a document: the locale of the original, authoritative
rpm-info-${LANG}.xml file.  After all, not all documents will
originate in "en", will they?  The complications and accommodations
seem to be creeping in.  Let's stomp them out.

My original vision was that a single rpm-info.xml file would contain
ALL the meta-information for a document.  There didn't seem to be a
way to have a separate ".spec" file for each language (and thus
separate RPM's) and that implied that all the changelog activity
could be lumped together.

BTW, I considered the "%changelog" to not strictly be an RPM or
document ChangeLog as such, but to represent more of an event log.
Each correction, addition, or packaging event would be recorded
there.  Just before an RPM package release, a new RPM event would be
added thus marking the RPM version and release.  No need to
synchronize the document versions with the RPM versions unless
convention dictated.

Not a course change, just a return to sanity.

You have now read my $0.02USD.  What is yours?  We await your
pleasure.