Hello, I'm not an expert but as far as i know you have two possibilities to make you spec file localized: * Use specspo. This is included as a package in quite some distributions. You can find quite a lot of examples with google, but i didn't yet find some nice docs about it. * Put the translations in the .spec file. For example if you want to add the translations for Dutch: Summary: My new rpm. Summary(nl): Mijn nieuwe rpm. %description My description for my new rpm. %description -l nl Mijn omschrijving van mijn nieuwe rpm. Online example: http://dries.studentenweb.org/ayo/packages/amsn/amsn.spec I use the second solution at this moment but in the future i would like to start using specspo (quite some work to switch probably). Kind regards, Dries Verachtert On Wednesday 14 January 2004 03:37, Joey Shen wrote: > Thanks Nicolas, > > In that case, I'll keep the license file in %doc. And I'm not intending > to change the standard behavior and philosophy of rpm. > > Any ideas about the localization problem? Although I didn't see any > localized rpm packages, I wonder if there could be some in theory. > > Thanks! > -JoeyS > > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >Le mar 13/01/2004 à 08:55, Joey Shen a écrit : > >>2. How could we display some license information when running rpm -i > >>before the package is really being installed? > > > >-i already gives you the license name. If you put the license text in > >%doc with a LICENSE filename any admin will be able to get it when he > >needs to. If you can't be bothered to provide the license in a separate > >file/paper format why should the admin be forced to see it at every > >single installation ? This kind of force-feeding is why a major part of > >linux users switched to a free OS. > > > >> This case is a little bit > >>like MSI process, the installation UI would display some license text > >>and ask if the user want to continue, if the answer is no, installation > >>will exit in peace. Can rpm do the same thing (instead of echoing the > >>text and detecting user inputs in preinstall script)? > > > >rpm install is supposed to be non-interactive. In particular with modern > >tools like apt you won't get any user before the screen during > >installation (particularly if the process is run as a cron job). > > > >Any interactive part in rpm scriplets is an absolute no-go. It will > >annoy the hell out of your users/customers. If they absolutely need your > >software someone will repackage it just to kill the license part (like > >jpackage does from sun braindamaged jvms). If they don't don't expect to > >see them back again. Just put the license in the usual place, or > >(better) use a standard one so people don't have to look a it once > >they've seen its name and you'll be ok. > > > >Modern cars have all the electronics necessary to refuse to start before > >the driver has heard the full warranty disclaimer. Yet not a single > >carmaker even dreams of subjecting its customers to this (and cars can > >*kill*, and customers have been known to sue carmakers). Please cool > >down a bit and consider if you really need to replicate all that other > >OS processes. You don't. And if you think a bit, providing the Windows > >experience to people that choose to dump Windows is not the best way to > >win significant market share. > > > >Cheers, > > _______________________________________________ > Rpm-list mailing list > Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
