[GRASS5] Re: [g-doc] Spanish translation

GRASS GRASS developer
1

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[cc'd to grass-developers list]

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:19:31 +0200, Francisco Alonso Sarria <alonsarp@um.es> wrote:

Hi

I 'm doing a Spanish translation of some of the GRASS manuals as part of
the materials for the GIS course I'm teaching in the University of
Murcia (http://www.um.es/geograf/sig/SIGgf2000/comandos.html).

Wow, that's already a great beginning. First thing to do will be to
make the existence of this page known to others. Do you object to me
putting a link to it on the GRASS pages ?

One of my intentions was to use it as the begining of a more proper
translation. So i'd like to have some feedback from yours and
suggestions on how to do it.

Internationalisation of GRASS is one of the upcoming issues and not
all options have been discussed, yet. On the French list there was a
debate about transforming all man pages into docbook and then using
some tools such as gettext to facilitate translation. But this is
still in the project stage.

Up to now man-pages are directly in the source tree and will probably
stay there. The question will be whether to put the translations there
as well. One argument for keeping the two together was that man pages
are linked to the current state of the relevant modules. But putting
all translations into there might overcrowd the source tree. What do
the developers think ?

We could also put all the translations into the grass documentation
cvs module.

So, Francisco, just go on with the html pages you're doing right now,
they're great the way they are.
Once we have made a decision about the exact organisation we can
integrate your work.

Thanks again for participating in the GRASS project !

Moritz
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/&gt;

iD8DBQE9kd1OyrpWRtQydA0RApLkAKC/y4zW9iEmz3XyxwHhHrpS0A2bnACggGbR
waWCeElnlwcOsFjPkBZh7tU=
=4EqJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2

On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 05:59:11PM +0200, Moritz Lennert wrote:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:19:31 +0200, Francisco Alonso Sarria <alonsarp@um.es> wrote:

Internationalisation of GRASS is one of the upcoming issues and not
all options have been discussed, yet. On the French list there was a
debate about transforming all man pages into docbook and then using
some tools such as gettext to facilitate translation. But this is
still in the project stage.

Up to now man-pages are directly in the source tree and will probably
stay there. The question will be whether to put the translations there
as well. One argument for keeping the two together was that man pages
are linked to the current state of the relevant modules. But putting
all translations into there might overcrowd the source tree. What do
the developers think ?

I think that the manpages (at least the English one) should stay
close to the source code. Ideally the developers would adapt the manpage
as soon as they substaintially change the code.

Gettext certainly can be used, I'm not sure that docbook is such a great idea,
though. It would bring us more burden on the necessary toolchain
when building grass furthermore docbooks seems complicated.

3

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 07:23 pm, Bernhard Reiter wrote:

Gettext certainly can be used, I'm not sure that docbook is such a great
idea, though. It would bring us more burden on the necessary toolchain
when building grass furthermore docbooks seems complicated.

In summer, I wanted to test 'grass_doc', unfortunately docbook is not
installed on my computer, so I downloaded 8 packages (each from different
site!) and spent some time by compilation. Because I was not able to
compile at least 2 of them, I downloaded .rpm, because I am not
root on my computer I tried rpm -i --root but even so some packages
wanted write to /etc. Our system administrator was on holiday ...

Compare to docbook, grass is just toy for children.

Radim

4

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:21:08AM +0200, Radim Blazek wrote:

On Wednesday 25 September 2002 07:23 pm, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> Gettext certainly can be used, I'm not sure that docbook is such a great
> idea, though. It would bring us more burden on the necessary toolchain
> when building grass furthermore docbooks seems complicated.

In summer, I wanted to test 'grass_doc', unfortunately docbook is not
installed on my computer, so I downloaded 8 packages (each from different
site!) and spent some time by compilation. Because I was not able to
compile at least 2 of them, I downloaded .rpm, because I am not
root on my computer I tried rpm -i --root but even so some packages
wanted write to /etc. Our system administrator was on holiday ...

Compare to docbook, grass is just toy for children.

You've got that the other way round...

Grass is more mature than docbook, that's why children have
a higher chance of using it. :slight_smile: