Jeff Johnson writes:
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:22:30AM +0200, Göran Uddeborg wrote:
> Jeff Johnson writes:
> As a RHL user I want
>
> the description (etc.), including translations, come, change, and go
> with the package. I don't want them to be modified when a
> different, technically unrelated, package is modified.
>
> Having one domain per package and including that domain with the
> package, is one way to implement that. Having all descriptions in
> the meta-data is another way. There are surely other ways.
>
All agreed, although "domain" is dangerously close to implementation.
"Domain" is certainly implementation.
I meant the FIRST paragraph to be a clean requirement specification.
The SECOND was meant to show how the implementation I had suggested in
earlier mails could meet the specification.
You can't be too clear, I guess. :-)
I am mainly concerned about rpm package format changes, as
retrofitting
Yet Another Solution (the next will be like my 5th attempt to get it right,
sigh) into package format is not fun at all.
Quite reasonable, that is definitely constraints which should be taken
into account.
> The current specspo is fine for this! [...]
I'll take that as complement, [...]
Please do!
We agree that *.po is only conceivable (i.e.
works/useful/adequate/your_criteria_here)?
What about: "*.po is a good implementation meeting my requirements as
a translator, and I am not aware of any other format/toolset which
also does".
It is true, and it doesn't actually specify an implementation. :-)
I'm not a purist always keeping specification and implementation
strictly apart. In this case I felt the discussion becoming confused,
so I wanted to clarify, that was all.