Hi, maybe you have already noticed that I have updated our customized xml2po tool. Based on xml2po 0.18.0 from gnome-doc-utils (git repo 2009-12-09) I have replaced tools/xml2po with tools/xml2po.py (which is /usr/bin/xml2po in the gnome-doc-utils package), added a new tools/xml2po directory containing the required modules (so that now our tool should be completely independent of the gnome-doc-utils- package), and have ported the patches which I had applied to the old xml2po program (plus a new feature). I hope everything is still working... We still have a (serious? / minor? / silly?) problem, though: There are still two xml2po commands: (1) the standard xml2po (usually /usr/bin/xml2po) shipped with gnome-doc-utils package -- this program is used by our autotools-based Makefile (autogen.sh - configure - make); (2) the customized xml2po (in the tools directory) which is used by Makefile.GNU. Both programs (and thus both Makefiles) produce slightly different po files: the customized tool should produce less <placeholder> tags and, after applying yet another patch, it computes the images' md5sums so that we can profit from xml2po's image check feature (which lets you know then an image has been changed). Obviously, it doesn't make sense to use both programs, especially since they produce different output. For example, the "correct" way to release an html package for some language would be to check first which Makefile to use... So we definitely have to decide which program to use! Soon! IMHO, if there's no feedback Roman should just choose one of them (we have already waited much too long!). To make clear what are the consequences of our choice I have tried to list the differences: 1) standard xml2po (gnome-doc-utils) ---------------------------------------------------------------- (+) standard (+) bugfixes added by maintainer (-) package version depends on distributor (+) works for us 2) our customized (non-standard) tools/xml2po.py ---------------------------------------------------------------- (+) customizable (we can do what we want) (-) no automatical updates - we have to watch the gnome-doc-utils repository (+) we can fix any bug immediately ... (-) ... if someone is willing and has the time to do this (+) independent of the gnome-doc-utils package (+) independent of system and (Linux) distribution, so ... (+) ... it should work also on Cygwin etc. (+) works for us(?) Feedback is welcome... Ulf
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
