On Sunday 16 March 2014 15:49:02 Chusslove Illich wrote: > The related problem for me is this: why are there still standalone language > packages for some of KDE software (the SC)? Other than historical reasons, > the only advantage I see is installation space. But I don't see anyone > complaining about all the other Gettext-using software coming with all > translations. In fact, for me installing the standalone language package is > always one more thing to remember to do, or to explain to people that they > should do. This vision isn't fully true, though. Large software packages do come with splitted out translations, at least the way some distros package them. OK, I actually have only one example: libreoffice-l10n-af | African Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-am | Amharic Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-ar | Arabic Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-as | Assamese Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-ast | Asturian Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-be-BY | Belorussian Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-bg | Bulgarian Localization Files for LibreOffice | package libreoffice-l10n-br | Breton French Localization Files for LibreOffice | package [...] > I think that the only reasonable thing for Frameworks themselves is to ship > with translations as part of each framework. Yes. > Some packaging scripts will > have to be adapted to make this easy on the release person. Yes please !!! :-) > I would suggest > using the same system for everything else that was so far covered by > standalone language packages, and doing away with them. No opinion from me about workspace and apps. -- David Faure, faure@kde.org, http://www.davidfaure.fr Working on KDE, in particular KDE Frameworks 5