kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Marco Ciampa <ciampix@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 10:22:00AM +0400, Fat-Zer wrote:
> 2015-02-07 3:11 GMT+03:00 Marco Ciampa <ciampix@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Sat, Feb 07, 2015 at 01:02:20AM +0100, Nick Østergaard wrote:
> >> I think Marco mentioned on IRC that you could provide multiple files to
> >> po4a and solve it with the make scripts. Of course this should not hold
> >> anyone back at patching.
> >>
> >> Is this correct Marco?
> >
> > Yes! See the other mail ... ;-)
> >
> About your Makefile, instead of sed'ing the files you may store them
> in the different dir...
> 
> As a propose, have you considered if it would be better to have
> multiple po files, one for each *.adoc?

As a criterion I want to make the Makefile behave in a way that will be
consistent with the behaviour of a new, corrected version of po4a.

Let me think about it, I am open to suggestions.

If you think there could be a better way to handle it, please try to
explain it in all the details so we can see if there are any flaws in it.

Using a .po file for file would mean that we cannot maintain the current
structure to have a .po file for language: it.po, fr.po, etc.

That it means that they should be in a form like:

locales/it/LC_MESSAGES/
Pcbnew.po
Pcbnew_chapter_01.po
Pcbnew_chapter_02.po
Pcbnew_chapter_03.po
...

that could be a great idea and consistent with other toolchains (see
sphinx).

Do you prefer this way?

Do you think it would be better in this way?

PS: hope you do not mind I bounce this email also into devs ml, I do not
see any problem on making this discussion public...

Thank you very much for sharing me your thougths.

I am _not_ a programmer. If someone has some suggestion on how to
improve this mechanism, please send suggestions!

--


Marco Ciampa

I know a joke about UDP, but you might not get it.

+------------------------+
| GNU/Linux User  #78271 |
| FSFE fellow       #364 |
+------------------------+