Proposal: Drop comps
vondruch at redhat.com
Wed Jul 15 10:53:33 UTC 2015
Dne 15.7.2015 v 12:21 Mathieu Bridon napsal(a):
> On Wed, 2015-07-15 at 10:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> > On 07/15/2015 10:20 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> > > Description and Summary can be localized in .spec file , where
>>> > > supposedly "names" in comps terminology refers to "summary" in
>>> > > .spec
>>> > > terminology. Including translations is encouraged in guidelines as
>>> > > well
>>> > > [2, 3], unfortunately without any further details :/
>> > I don't think localized summaries and descriptions are applicable in
>> > distributions like Fedora, where packages are maintained by
>> > individuals.
>> > IMO, making localized summaries/descrs. helpful would require a
>> > multilingal team of translators/packagers, whose sole task it would
>> > have
>> > to be to add translations for a predefined set of languages to
>> > maintain
>> > them.
>> > That said, I don't consider random packagers adding random
>> > translations
>> > to packages to be useful and to cause more problems than they solve.
> One problem with localized summaries/descriptions in packages, is that
> you need a new build (and a new update in Bodhi, unless you wait 6
> months for the next release) for it to reach users.
> That's a lot of churn, and it's a terrible UX for users to keep
> receiving "updates" that only add a translation of the
> summary/description of the package (not the app itself!) in a language
> they might not even care of.
> Comps is much better on this point: we edit comps, and at the next
> compose the change is taken into account.
> Much less churn, especially for the users.
But how is better to have translated just comps, when nothing else is
translated? And speaking of UI, comps translation are visible just in
More information about the devel