On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 01:19:51PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 01:50:50PM +0200, Pavel Hrdina wrote:
> > Currently we had hard-coded `zanata` as a name of the binary, but
> > it can also be `zanata-cli`.
>
> FWIW, I hardcoded 'zanata' for two reasons
>
> - It is a light weight python client, compared to the java
> client which pulls in a huge dep chains.
> - I found the java client unreliable eg several times when
> pushing a new .pot file, it pushed the pot but failed to tell
> the server to preserve existing translations, so we lost all
> translations.
>
> I'd hope the latter is fixed now, but honestly I would still
> not recommend using the java client, when the python client
> is working nicely.
>
> Is there a particular reason you wanted to make it autodetect ?
I was not aware of the python client, I just thought that it was an
older/different version of the java client.
It looks like that the python client supports specifying srcdir and
transdir and project-config so it can be used with the same/similar
options.
We can drop this patch, update po/README.md file to state that we
require the python client and update the previous patch to use correct
options.
The difference between zanata-cli and zanata for our use-case is:
| zanata-cli | zanata
--------------------------- |-------------------|-----------------
where libvirt.pot is | --src-dir | --srcdir
where $LANG.po files are | --trans-dir | --transdir
Pavel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
