X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlemail.com; s=20120113;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=zlgyHThLDP0pe/zKevBrkKBOS9fhXCoIyYBXRLoa7zM=;
        b=OhunN3rJG1gWFzNWVpCEezuW2nI8EwGP1nzs9qXpIY7oSl328dXVd3YqNfIzl5VG1Z
         vIf7iMwRfJmIQdptLQFwc+QOOAa0CQp1NW0aKs4941QCQwS/QFDmffA3QdKxkBYudtNj
         Jyt/4awT0BiCLhc3mwAt7wI5p225tMtYuaVc9SfKnKx8G/I2hkKO/IEMWHH0Kz+SPo/+
         b/PGEghWyLHg2nuuDlHczDuze+IGhbItou8RbROmMnFPU/5rECSagmtfE7T02M30+JFE
         8Hx2nuOr/Mwg9NceEU0uR/jJzd/8P+MCg4srIH2EbgNWaFoZHGNi8AxC4HwvYALr1mtH
         0CCw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.81.202 with SMTP id c10mr12038026oey.61.1450803325852;
 Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:55:25 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <14F365D1-6794-427D-893B-BD972E81771E@sbcglobal.net>
References: <2F985E82-4EA8-42C9-9C50-99816BCE0BB4 AT sbcglobal DOT net>
	<CAMvDHVD7FBFuoMwhk3CXjKOOypDBXfmU9wvDTvQt8nvwoK2vZA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<14F365D1-6794-427D-893B-BD972E81771E AT sbcglobal DOT net>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:55:25 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJXU7q9HD2FcfgY_xXTtE51jYf5Dm+zHjfems6V7qZzEcJQObA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Missing PO Files
From: "Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
To: gEDA User Mailing List <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id tBMGtT2u011242
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Would be useful to check how that impacts on the build-system, since
each is  (at least last time I checked) built as a stand-alone make
sub-process from within the top-level.

At one point, I think Peter B and I thought libgeda ought to be more
stand-alone from the other programs and translations (which might make
some small argument for separating translations).

The only implication I can think might crop up is distro-packaging of
the installed translation files. By sharing them between programs
(which still for most distros, have separate build and install
processes), you create the necessity to split out a common dependency
package with the translation files (or tie it into libgeda, since most
use this).

geda-xgsch2pcb still lives out of tree from the rest of gEDA, so
probably needs to retain its separate PO files.

Peter

On 22 December 2015 at 16:15, Edward Hennessy (ehennes AT sbcglobal DOT net)
[via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 9:08 PM, Vladimir Zhbanov (vzhbanov AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> Ideally, yes. And there should be as many po-files as possible.
>> Actually, we have those files that the devs pulled from launchpad
>> or got privately from translators.
>
> Thanks Vladimir.
>
> Also, since there are multiple translation directories that need to be maintained, would it be an improvement to move the PO folder to the root and make one translation domain for the entire project? For example, all programs and libraries in gEDA would just used the “geda” textdomain, instead of separate ones, “geda-gschem,” “geda-gaf,” “geda-gattrib,” etc…
>
> Ed
>
>