Hi Martin,
Le 24/06/2015 16:40, Martin Quinson a écrit :
On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 10:34:30PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 05:14:20PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
Even if disruptive changes in the gettext/po4a toolchain (and underlined Perl handling) are always painful […], with my Debian packager hat on, I’d say that now (early in the development cycle) is exactly the right moment to make such change if it’s an improvement worthing the disruption.
About this change, now. My current feeling is that it should be an optional behavior. It is very possible to pass options to the PO4A modules, so that users may choose how to handle tbl macros. David, do you think that it would do the trick?
Ok. I found some time to dig into this issue, and implemented an option to choose between the old and new behavior. But I'm not sure I want to commit it. Robert's change is a great improvement.
[…]
Who on the earth would choose the second version?
I, for one, already moved the PO files from manpages-fr-extra to cope with the new behavior and have no intent to move backward. On the other hand, I haven’t dealt with perkamon for a while, where there might be a huge work to deal with (that can hopefully be mostly automatized as partly documented earlier [0]). Other projects may have another view on that (I can only think of those two projects using po4a for dealing with a big amount of manpages, but I only know those two from the narrow view of a French translator who happen to [have] be[en] involved).
0: https://bugs.debian.org/786525#20
I think, David, that we have here what you call an improvement worthing the disruption. Do you agree, or would you insist on having an option?
Nobody else following up on that bug report might be a sign that having an opt-out is not really worth it. On the other hand, I have no idea if the latest po4a version is already widely spread among its users.
Regards
David