This is Info file gettext.info, produced by Makeinfo version 1.68 from the input file gettext.texi. INFO-DIR-SECTION GNU Gettext Utilities START-INFO-DIR-ENTRY * Gettext: (gettext). GNU gettext utilities. * gettextize: (gettext)gettextize Invocation. Prepare a package for gettext. * msgfmt: (gettext)msgfmt Invocation. Make MO files out of PO files. * msgmerge: (gettext)msgmerge Invocation. Update two PO files into one. * xgettext: (gettext)xgettext Invocation. Extract strings into a PO file. END-INFO-DIR-ENTRY This file provides documentation for GNU `gettext' utilities. It also serves as a reference for the free Translation Project. Copyright (C) 1995, 1996, 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this manual provided the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all copies. Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of this manual under the conditions for verbatim copying, provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations of this manual into another language, under the above conditions for modified versions, except that this permission notice may be stated in a translation approved by the Foundation.  File: gettext.info, Node: Optimized gettext, Prev: Locating Catalogs, Up: gettext Optimization of the *gettext functions -------------------------------------- At this point of the discussion we should talk about an advantage of the GNU `gettext' implementation. Some readers might have pointed out that an internationalized program might have a poor performance if some string has to be translated in an inner loop. While this is unavoidable when the string varies from one run of the loop to the other it is simply a waste of time when the string is always the same. Take the following example: { while (...) { puts (gettext ("Hello world")); } } When the locale selection does not change between two runs the resulting string is always the same. One way to use this is: { str = gettext ("Hello world"); while (...) { puts (str); } } But this solution is not usable in all situation (e.g. when the locale selection changes) nor is it good readable. The GNU C compiler, version 2.7 and above, provide another solution for this. To describe this we show here some lines of the `intl/libgettext.h' file. For an explanation of the expression command block see *Note Statements and Declarations in Expressions: (gcc)Statement Exprs. # if defined __GNUC__ && __GNUC__ == 2 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7 extern int _nl_msg_cat_cntr; # define dcgettext(domainname, msgid, category) \ (__extension__ \ ({ \ char *result; \ if (__builtin_constant_p (msgid)) \ { \ static char *__translation__; \ static int __catalog_counter__; \ if (! __translation__ \ || __catalog_counter__ != _nl_msg_cat_cntr) \ { \ __translation__ = \ dcgettext__ ((domainname), (msgid), (category)); \ __catalog_counter__ = _nl_msg_cat_cntr; \ } \ result = __translation__; \ } \ else \ result = dcgettext__ ((domainname), (msgid), (category)); \ result; \ })) # endif The interesting thing here is the `__builtin_constant_p' predicate. This is evaluated at compile time and so optimization can take place immediately. Here two cases are distinguished: the argument to `gettext' is not a constant value in which case simply the function `dcgettext__' is called, the real implementation of the `dcgettext' function. If the string argument *is* constant we can reuse the once gained translation when the locale selection has not changed. This is exactly what is done here. The `_nl_msg_cat_cntr' variable is defined in the `loadmsgcat.c' which is available in `libintl.a' and is changed whenever a new message catalog is loaded.  File: gettext.info, Node: Comparison, Next: Using libintl.a, Prev: gettext, Up: Programmers Comparing the Two Interfaces ============================ The following discussion is perhaps a little bit colored. As said above we implemented GNU `gettext' following the Uniforum proposal and this surely has its reasons. But it should show how we came to this decision. First we take a look at the developing process. When we write an application using NLS provided by `gettext' we proceed as always. Only when we come to a string which might be seen by the users and thus has to be translated we use `gettext("...")' instead of `"..."'. At the beginning of each source file (or in a central header file) we define #define gettext(String) (String) Even this definition can be avoided when the system supports the `gettext' function in its C library. When we compile this code the result is the same as if no NLS code is used. When you take a look at the GNU `gettext' code you will see that we use `_("...")' instead of `gettext("...")'. This reduces the number of additional characters per translatable string to *3* (in words: three). When now a production version of the program is needed we simply replace the definition #define _(String) (String) by #include #define _(String) gettext (String) Additionally we run the program `xgettext' on all source code file which contain translatable strings and that's it: we have a running program which does not depend on translations to be available, but which can use any that becomes available. The same procedure can be done for the `gettext_noop' invocations (*note Special cases::.). First you can define `gettext_noop' to a no-op macro and later use the definition from `libintl.h'. Because this name is not used in Suns implementation of `libintl.h', you should consider the following code for your project: #ifdef gettext_noop # define N_(String) gettext_noop (String) #else # define N_(String) (String) #endif `N_' is a short form similar to `_'. The `Makefile' in the `po/' directory of GNU gettext knows by default both of the mentioned short forms so you are invited to follow this proposal for your own ease. Now to `catgets'. The main problem is the work for the programmer. Every time he comes to a translatable string he has to define a number (or a symbolic constant) which has also be defined in the message catalog file. He also has to take care for duplicate entries, duplicate message IDs etc. If he wants to have the same quality in the message catalog as the GNU `gettext' program provides he also has to put the descriptive comments for the strings and the location in all source code files in the message catalog. This is nearly a Mission: Impossible. But there are also some points people might call advantages speaking for `catgets'. If you have a single word in a string and this string is used in different contexts it is likely that in one or the other language the word has different translations. Example: printf ("%s: %d", gettext ("number"), number_of_errors) printf ("you should see %d %s", number_count, number_count == 1 ? gettext ("number") : gettext ("numbers")) Here we have to translate two times the string `"number"'. Even if you do not speak a language beside English it might be possible to recognize that the two words have a different meaning. In German the first appearance has to be translated to `"Anzahl"' and the second to `"Zahl"'. Now you can say that this example is really esoteric. And you are right! This is exactly how we felt about this problem and decide that it does not weight that much. The solution for the above problem could be very easy: printf ("%s %d", gettext ("number:"), number_of_errors) printf (number_count == 1 ? gettext ("you should see %d number") : gettext ("you should see %d numbers"), number_count) We believe that we can solve all conflicts with this method. If it is difficult one can also consider changing one of the conflicting string a little bit. But it is not impossible to overcome. Translator note: It is perhaps appropriate here to tell those English speaking programmers that the plural form of a noun cannot be formed by appending a single `s'. Most other languages use different methods. Even the above form is not general enough to cope with all languages. Rafal Maszkowski reports: In Polish we use e.g. plik (file) this way: 1 plik 2,3,4 pliki 5-21 pliko'w 22-24 pliki 25-31 pliko'w and so on (o' means 8859-2 oacute which should be rather okreska, similar to aogonek). A workable approach might be to consider methods like the one used for `LC_TIME' in the POSIX.2 standard. The value of the `alt_digits' field can be up to 100 strings which represent the numbers 1 to 100. Using this in a situation of an internationalized program means that an array of translatable strings should be indexed by the number which should represent. A small example: void print_month_info (int month) { const char *month_pos[12] = { N_("first"), N_("second"), N_("third"), N_("fourth"), N_("fifth"), N_("sixth"), N_("seventh"), N_("eighth"), N_("ninth"), N_("tenth"), N_("eleventh"), N_("twelfth") }; printf (_("%s is the %s month\n"), nl_langinfo (MON_1 + month), _(month_pos[month])); } It should be obvious that this method is only reasonable for small ranges of numbers.  File: gettext.info, Node: Using libintl.a, Next: gettext grok, Prev: Comparison, Up: Programmers Using libintl.a in own programs =============================== Starting with version 0.9.4 the library `libintl.h' should be self-contained. I.e., you can use it in your own programs without providing additional functions. The `Makefile' will put the header and the library in directories selected using the `$(prefix)'. One exception of the above is found on HP-UX systems. Here the C library does not contain the `alloca' function (and the HP compiler does not generate it inlined). But it is not intended to rewrite the whole library just because of this dumb system. Instead include the `alloca' function in all package you use the `libintl.a' in.  File: gettext.info, Node: gettext grok, Next: Temp Programmers, Prev: Using libintl.a, Up: Programmers Being a `gettext' grok ====================== To fully exploit the functionality of the GNU `gettext' library it is surely helpful to read the source code. But for those who don't want to spend that much time in reading the (sometimes complicated) code here is a list comments: * Changing the language at runtime For interactive programs it might be useful to offer a selection of the used language at runtime. To understand how to do this one need to know how the used language is determined while executing the `gettext' function. The method which is presented here only works correctly with the GNU implementation of the `gettext' functions. It is not possible with underlying `catgets' functions or `gettext' functions from the systems C library. The exception is of course the GNU C Library which uses the GNU `gettext' Library for message handling. In the function `dcgettext' at every call the current setting of the highest priority environment variable is determined and used. Highest priority means here the following list with decreasing priority: 1. `LANGUAGE' 2. `LC_ALL' 3. `LC_xxx', according to selected locale 4. `LANG' Afterwards the path is constructed using the found value and the translation file is loaded if available. What is now when the value for, say, `LANGUAGE' changes. According to the process explained above the new value of this variable is found as soon as the `dcgettext' function is called. But this also means the (perhaps) different message catalog file is loaded. In other words: the used language is changed. But there is one little hook. The code for gcc-2.7.0 and up provides some optimization. This optimization normally prevents the calling of the `dcgettext' function as long as no new catalog is loaded. But if `dcgettext' is not called the program also cannot find the `LANGUAGE' variable be changed (*note Optimized gettext::.). A solution for this is very easy. Include the following code in the language switching function. /* Change language. */ setenv ("LANGUAGE", "fr", 1); /* Make change known. */ { extern int _nl_msg_cat_cntr; ++_nl_msg_cat_cntr; } The variable `_nl_msg_cat_cntr' is defined in `loadmsgcat.c'. The programmer will find himself in need for a construct like this only when developing programs which do run longer and provide the user to select the language at runtime. Non-interactive programs (like all these little Unix tools) should never need this.  File: gettext.info, Node: Temp Programmers, Prev: gettext grok, Up: Programmers Temporary Notes for the Programmers Chapter =========================================== * Menu: * Temp Implementations:: Temporary - Two Possible Implementations * Temp catgets:: Temporary - About `catgets' * Temp WSI:: Temporary - Why a single implementation * Temp Notes:: Temporary - Notes  File: gettext.info, Node: Temp Implementations, Next: Temp catgets, Prev: Temp Programmers, Up: Temp Programmers Temporary - Two Possible Implementations ---------------------------------------- There are two competing methods for language independent messages: the X/Open `catgets' method, and the Uniforum `gettext' method. The `catgets' method indexes messages by integers; the `gettext' method indexes them by their English translations. The `catgets' method has been around longer and is supported by more vendors. The `gettext' method is supported by Sun, and it has been heard that the COSE multi-vendor initiative is supporting it. Neither method is a POSIX standard; the POSIX.1 committee had a lot of disagreement in this area. Neither one is in the POSIX standard. There was much disagreement in the POSIX.1 committee about using the `gettext' routines vs. `catgets' (XPG). In the end the committee couldn't agree on anything, so no messaging system was included as part of the standard. I believe the informative annex of the standard includes the XPG3 messaging interfaces, "...as an example of a messaging system that has been implemented..." They were very careful not to say anywhere that you should use one set of interfaces over the other. For more on this topic please see the Programming for Internationalization FAQ.  File: gettext.info, Node: Temp catgets, Next: Temp WSI, Prev: Temp Implementations, Up: Temp Programmers Temporary - About `catgets' --------------------------- There have been a few discussions of late on the use of `catgets' as a base. I think it important to present both sides of the argument and hence am opting to play devil's advocate for a little bit. I'll not deny the fact that `catgets' could have been designed a lot better. It currently has quite a number of limitations and these have already been pointed out. However there is a great deal to be said for consistency and standardization. A common recurring problem when writing Unix software is the myriad portability problems across Unix platforms. It seems as if every Unix vendor had a look at the operating system and found parts they could improve upon. Undoubtedly, these modifications are probably innovative and solve real problems. However, software developers have a hard time keeping up with all these changes across so many platforms. And this has prompted the Unix vendors to begin to standardize their systems. Hence the impetus for Spec1170. Every major Unix vendor has committed to supporting this standard and every Unix software developer waits with glee the day they can write software to this standard and simply recompile (without having to use autoconf) across different platforms. As I understand it, Spec1170 is roughly based upon version 4 of the X/Open Portability Guidelines (XPG4). Because `catgets' and friends are defined in XPG4, I'm led to believe that `catgets' is a part of Spec1170 and hence will become a standardized component of all Unix systems.  File: gettext.info, Node: Temp WSI, Next: Temp Notes, Prev: Temp catgets, Up: Temp Programmers Temporary - Why a single implementation --------------------------------------- Now it seems kind of wasteful to me to have two different systems installed for accessing message catalogs. If we do want to remedy `catgets' deficiencies why don't we try to expand `catgets' (in a compatible manner) rather than implement an entirely new system. Otherwise, we'll end up with two message catalog access systems installed with an operating system - one set of routines for packages using GNU `gettext' for their internationalization, and another set of routines (catgets) for all other software. Bloated? Supposing another catalog access system is implemented. Which do we recommend? At least for Linux, we need to attract as many software developers as possible. Hence we need to make it as easy for them to port their software as possible. Which means supporting `catgets'. We will be implementing the `glocale' code within our `libc', but does this mean we also have to incorporate another message catalog access scheme within our `libc' as well? And what about people who are going to be using the `glocale' + non-`catgets' routines. When they port their software to other platforms, they're now going to have to include the front-end (`glocale') code plus the back-end code (the non-`catgets' access routines) with their software instead of just including the `glocale' code with their software. Message catalog support is however only the tip of the iceberg. What about the data for the other locale categories. They also have a number of deficiencies. Are we going to abandon them as well and develop another duplicate set of routines (should `glocale' expand beyond message catalog support)? Like many parts of Unix that can be improved upon, we're stuck with balancing compatibility with the past with useful improvements and innovations for the future.  File: gettext.info, Node: Temp Notes, Prev: Temp WSI, Up: Temp Programmers Temporary - Notes ----------------- X/Open agreed very late on the standard form so that many implementations differ from the final form. Both of my system (old Linux catgets and Ultrix-4) have a strange variation. OK. After incorporating the last changes I have to spend some time on making the GNU/Linux `libc' `gettext' functions. So in future Solaris is not the only system having `gettext'.  File: gettext.info, Node: Translators, Next: Maintainers, Prev: Programmers, Up: Top The Translator's View ********************* * Menu: * Trans Intro 0:: Introduction 0 * Trans Intro 1:: Introduction 1 * Discussions:: Discussions * Organization:: Organization * Information Flow:: Information Flow  File: gettext.info, Node: Trans Intro 0, Next: Trans Intro 1, Prev: Translators, Up: Translators Introduction 0 ============== GNU is going international! The Translation Project is a way to get maintainers, translators and users all together, so GNU will gradually become able to speak many native languages. The GNU `gettext' tool set contains *everything* maintainers need for internationalizing their packages for messages. It also contains quite useful tools for helping translators at localizing messages to their native language, once a package has already been internationalized. To achieve the Translation Project, we need many interested people who like their own language and write it well, and who are also able to synergize with other translators speaking the same language. If you'd like to volunteer to *work* at translating messages, please send mail to your translating team. Each team has its own mailing list, courtesy of Linux International. You may reach your translating team at the address `LL@li.org', replacing LL by the two-letter ISO 639 code for your language. Language codes are *not* the same as country codes given in ISO 3166. The following translating teams exist: Chinese `zh', Czech `cs', Danish `da', Dutch `nl', Esperanto `eo', Finnish `fi', French `fr', Irish `ga', German `de', Greek `el', Italian `it', Japanese `ja', Indonesian `in', Norwegian `no', Polish `pl', Portuguese `pt', Russian `ru', Spanish `es', Swedish `sv' and Turkish `tr'. For example, you may reach the Chinese translating team by writing to `zh@li.org'. When you become a member of the translating team for your own language, you may subscribe to its list. For example, Swedish people can send a message to `sv-request@li.org', having this message body: subscribe Keep in mind that team members should be interested in *working* at translations, or at solving translational difficulties, rather than merely lurking around. If your team does not exist yet and you want to start one, please write to `gnu-translation@prep.ai.mit.edu'; you will then reach the GNU coordinator for all translator teams. A handful of GNU packages have already been adapted and provided with message translations for several languages. Translation teams have begun to organize, using these packages as a starting point. But there are many more packages and many languages for which we have no volunteer translators. If you would like to volunteer to work at translating messages, please send mail to `gnu-translation@prep.ai.mit.edu' indicating what language(s) you can work on.  File: gettext.info, Node: Trans Intro 1, Next: Discussions, Prev: Trans Intro 0, Up: Translators Introduction 1 ============== This is now official, GNU is going international! Here is the announcement submitted for the January 1995 GNU Bulletin: A handful of GNU packages have already been adapted and provided with message translations for several languages. Translation teams have begun to organize, using these packages as a starting point. But there are many more packages and many languages for which we have no volunteer translators. If you'd like to volunteer to work at translating messages, please send mail to `gnu-translation@prep.ai.mit.edu' indicating what language(s) you can work on. This document should answer many questions for those who are curious about the process or would like to contribute. Please at least skim over it, hoping to cut down a little of the high volume of e-mail generated by this collective effort towards GNU internationalization. Most free programming which is widely shared is done in English, and currently, English is used as the main communicating language between national communities collaborating to the GNU project. This very document is written in English. This will not change in the foreseeable future. However, there is a strong appetite from national communities for having more software able to write using national language and habits, and there is an on-going effort to modify GNU software in such a way that it becomes able to do so. The experiments driven so far raised an enthusiastic response from pretesters, so we believe that GNU internationalization is dedicated to succeed. For suggestion clarifications, additions or corrections to this document, please e-mail to `gnu-translation@prep.ai.mit.edu'.  File: gettext.info, Node: Discussions, Next: Organization, Prev: Trans Intro 1, Up: Translators Discussions =========== Facing this internationalization effort, a few users expressed their concerns. Some of these doubts are presented and discussed, here. * Smaller groups Some languages are not spoken by a very large number of people, so people speaking them sometimes consider that there may not be all that much demand such versions of free software packages. Moreover, many people being *into computers*, in some countries, generally seem to prefer English versions of their software. On the other end, people might enjoy their own language a lot, and be very motivated at providing to themselves the pleasure of having their beloved free software speaking their mother tongue. They do themselves a personal favor, and do not pay that much attention to the number of people beneficiating of their work. * Misinterpretation Other users are shy to push forward their own language, seeing in this some kind of misplaced propaganda. Someone thought there must be some users of the language over the networks pestering other people with it. But any spoken language is worth localization, because there are people behind the language for whom the language is important and dear to their hearts. * Odd translations The biggest problem is to find the right translations so that everybody can understand the messages. Translations are usually a little odd. Some people get used to English, to the extent they may find translations into their own language "rather pushy, obnoxious and sometimes even hilarious." As a French speaking man, I have the experience of those instruction manuals for goods, so poorly translated in French in Korea or Taiwan... The fact is that we sometimes have to create a kind of national computer culture, and this is not easy without the collaboration of many people liking their mother tongue. This is why translations are better achieved by people knowing and loving their own language, and ready to work together at improving the results they obtain. * Dependencies over the GPL Some people wonder if using GNU `gettext' necessarily brings their package under the protective wing of the GNU General Public License, when they do not want to make their program free, or want other kinds of freedom. The simplest answer is yes. The mere marking of localizable strings in a package, or conditional inclusion of a few lines for initialization, is not really including GPL'ed code. However, the localization routines themselves are under the GPL and would bring the remainder of the package under the GPL if they were distributed with it. So, I presume that, for those for which this is a problem, it could be circumvented by letting to the end installers the burden of assembling a package prepared for localization, but not providing the localization routines themselves.  File: gettext.info, Node: Organization, Next: Information Flow, Prev: Discussions, Up: Translators Organization ============ On a larger scale, the true solution would be to organize some kind of fairly precise set up in which volunteers could participate. I gave some thought to this idea lately, and realize there will be some touchy points. I thought of writing to Richard Stallman to launch such a project, but feel it might be good to shake out the ideas between ourselves first. Most probably that Linux International has some experience in the field already, or would like to orchestrate the volunteer work, maybe. Food for thought, in any case! I guess we have to setup something early, somehow, that will help many possible contributors of the same language to interlock and avoid work duplication, and further be put in contact for solving together problems particular to their tongue (in most languages, there are many difficulties peculiar to translating technical English). My Swedish contributor acknowledged these difficulties, and I'm well aware of them for French. This is surely not a technical issue, but we should manage so the effort of locale contributors be maximally useful, despite the national team layer interface between contributors and maintainers. The Translation Project needs some setup for coordinating language coordinators. Localizing evolving programs will surely become a permanent and continuous activity in the free software community, once well started. The setup should be minimally completed and tested before GNU `gettext' becomes an official reality. The e-mail address `translation@iro.umontreal.ca' has been setup for receiving offers from volunteers and general e-mail on these topics. This address reaches the Translation Project coordinator. * Menu: * Central Coordination:: Central Coordination * National Teams:: National Teams * Mailing Lists:: Mailing Lists  File: gettext.info, Node: Central Coordination, Next: National Teams, Prev: Organization, Up: Organization Central Coordination -------------------- I also think GNU will need sooner than it thinks, that someone setup a way to organize and coordinate these groups. Some kind of group of groups. My opinion is that it would be good that GNU delegates this task to a small group of collaborating volunteers, shortly. Perhaps in `gnu.announce' a list of this national committee's can be published. My role as coordinator would simply be to refer to Ulrich any German speaking volunteer interested to localization of free software packages, and maybe helping national groups to initially organize, while maintaining national registries for until national groups are ready to take over. In fact, the coordinator should ease volunteers to get in contact with one another for creating national teams, which should then select one coordinator per language, or country (regionalized language). If well done, the coordination should be useful without being an overwhelming task, the time to put delegations in place.  File: gettext.info, Node: National Teams, Next: Mailing Lists, Prev: Central Coordination, Up: Organization National Teams -------------- I suggest we look for volunteer coordinators/editors for individual languages. These people will scan contributions of translation files for various programs, for their own languages, and will ensure high and uniform standards of diction. From my current experience with other people in these days, those who provide localizations are very enthusiastic about the process, and are more interested in the localization process than in the program they localize, and want to do many programs, not just one. This seems to confirm that having a coordinator/editor for each language is a good idea. We need to choose someone who is good at writing clear and concise prose in the language in question. That is hard--we can't check it ourselves. So we need to ask a few people to judge each others' writing and select the one who is best. I announce my prerelease to a few dozen people, and you would not believe all the discussions it generated already. I shudder to think what will happen when this will be launched, for true, officially, world wide. Who am I to arbitrate between two Czekolsovak users contradicting each other, for example? I assume that your German is not much better than my French so that I would not be able to judge about these formulations. What I would suggest is that for each language there is a group for people who maintain the PO files and judge about changes. I suspect there will be cultural differences between how such groups of people will behave. Some will have relaxed ways, reach consensus easily, and have anyone of the group relate to the maintainers, while others will fight to death, organize heavy administrations up to national standards, and use strict channels. The German team is putting out a good example. Right now, they are maybe half a dozen people revising translations of each other and discussing the linguistic issues. I do not even have all the names. Ulrich Drepper is taking care of coordinating the German team. He subscribed to all my pretest lists, so I do not even have to warn him specifically of incoming releases. I'm sure, that is a good idea to get teams for each language working on translations. That will make the translations better and more consistent. * Menu: * Sub-Cultures:: Sub-Cultures * Organizational Ideas:: Organizational Ideas  File: gettext.info, Node: Sub-Cultures, Next: Organizational Ideas, Prev: National Teams, Up: National Teams Sub-Cultures ............ Taking French for example, there are a few sub-cultures around computers which developed diverging vocabularies. Picking volunteers here and there without addressing this problem in an organized way, soon in the project, might produce a distasteful mix of internationalized programs, and possibly trigger endless quarrels among those who really care. Keeping some kind of unity in the way French localization of internationalized programs is achieved is a difficult (and delicate) job. Knowing the latin character of French people (:-), if we take this the wrong way, we could end up nowhere, or spoil a lot of energies. Maybe we should begin to address this problem seriously *before* GNU `gettext' become officially published. And I suspect that this means soon!  File: gettext.info, Node: Organizational Ideas, Prev: Sub-Cultures, Up: National Teams Organizational Ideas .................... I expect the next big changes after the official release. Please note that I use the German translation of the short GPL message. We need to set a few good examples before the localization goes out for true in the free software community. Here are a few points to discuss: * Each group should have one FTP server (at least one master). * The files on the server should reflect the latest version (of course!) and it should also contain a RCS directory with the corresponding archives (I don't have this now). * There should also be a ChangeLog file (this is more useful than the RCS archive but can be generated automatically from the later by Emacs). * A "core group" should judge about questionable changes (for now this group consists solely by me but I ask some others occasionally; this also seems to work).  File: gettext.info, Node: Mailing Lists, Prev: National Teams, Up: Organization Mailing Lists ------------- If we get any inquiries about GNU `gettext', send them on to: `translation@iro.umontreal.ca' The `*-pretest' lists are quite useful to me, maybe the idea could be generalized to many GNU, and non-GNU packages. But each maintainer his/her way! Franc,ois, we have a mechanism in place here at `gnu.ai.mit.edu' to track teams, support mailing lists for them and log members. We have a slight preference that you use it. If this is OK with you, I can get you clued in. Things are changing! A few years ago, when Daniel Fekete and I asked for a mailing list for GNU localization, nested at the FSF, we were politely invited to organize it anywhere else, and so did we. For communicating with my pretesters, I later made a handful of mailing lists located at iro.umontreal.ca and administrated by `majordomo'. These lists have been *very* dependable so far... I suspect that the German team will organize itself a mailing list located in Germany, and so forth for other countries. But before they organize for true, it could surely be useful to offer mailing lists located at the FSF to each national team. So yes, please explain me how I should proceed to create and handle them. We should create temporary mailing lists, one per country, to help people organize. Temporary, because once regrouped and structured, it would be fair the volunteers from country bring back *their* list in there and manage it as they want. My feeling is that, in the long run, each team should run its own list, from within their country. There also should be some central list to which all teams could subscribe as they see fit, as long as each team is represented in it.  File: gettext.info, Node: Information Flow, Prev: Organization, Up: Translators Information Flow ================ There will surely be some discussion about this messages after the packages are finally released. If people now send you some proposals for better messages, how do you proceed? Jim, please note that right now, as I put forward nearly a dozen of localizable programs, I receive both the translations and the coordination concerns about them. If I put one of my things to pretest, Ulrich receives the announcement and passes it on to the German team, who make last minute revisions. Then he submits the translation files to me *as the maintainer*. For free packages I do not maintain, I would not even hear about it. This scheme could be made to work for the whole Translation Project, I think. For security reasons, maybe Ulrich (national coordinators, in fact) should update central registry kept at the Translation Project (Jim, me, or Len's recruits) once in a while. In December/January, I was aggressively ready to internationalize all of GNU, giving myself the duty of one small GNU package per week or so, taking many weeks or months for bigger packages. But it does not work this way. I first did all the things I'm responsible for. I've nothing against some missionary work on other maintainers, but I'm also loosing a lot of energy over it--same debates over again. And when the first localized packages are released we'll get a lot of responses about ugly translations :-). Surely, and we need to have beforehand a fairly good idea about how to handle the information flow between the national teams and the package maintainers. Please start saving somewhere a quick history of each PO file. I know for sure that the file format will change, allowing for comments. It would be nice that each file has a kind of log, and references for those who want to submit comments or gripes, or otherwise contribute. I sent a proposal for a fast and flexible format, but it is not receiving acceptance yet by the GNU deciders. I'll tell you when I have more information about this.  File: gettext.info, Node: Maintainers, Next: Conclusion, Prev: Translators, Up: Top The Maintainer's View ********************* The maintainer of a package has many responsibilities. One of them is ensuring that the package will install easily on many platforms, and that the magic we described earlier (*note Users::.) will work for installers and end users. Of course, there are many possible ways by which GNU `gettext' might be integrated in a distribution, and this chapter does not cover them in all generality. Instead, it details one possible approach which is especially adequate for many free software distributions following GNU standards, or even better, Gnits standards, because GNU `gettext' is purposely for helping the internationalization of the whole GNU project, and as many other good free packages as possible. So, the maintainer's view presented here presumes that the package already has a `configure.in' file and uses GNU Autoconf. Nevertheless, GNU `gettext' may surely be useful for free packages not following GNU standards and conventions, but the maintainers of such packages might have to show imagination and initiative in organizing their distributions so `gettext' work for them in all situations. There are surely many, out there. Even if `gettext' methods are now stabilizing, slight adjustments might be needed between successive `gettext' versions, so you should ideally revise this chapter in subsequent releases, looking for changes. * Menu: * Flat and Non-Flat:: Flat or Non-Flat Directory Structures * Prerequisites:: Prerequisite Works * gettextize Invocation:: Invoking the `gettextize' Program * Adjusting Files:: Files You Must Create or Alter  File: gettext.info, Node: Flat and Non-Flat, Next: Prerequisites, Prev: Maintainers, Up: Maintainers Flat or Non-Flat Directory Structures ===================================== Some free software packages are distributed as `tar' files which unpack in a single directory, these are said to be "flat" distributions. Other free software packages have a one level hierarchy of subdirectories, using for example a subdirectory named `doc/' for the Texinfo manual and man pages, another called `lib/' for holding functions meant to replace or complement C libraries, and a subdirectory `src/' for holding the proper sources for the package. These other distributions are said to be "non-flat". For now, we cannot say much about flat distributions. A flat directory structure has the disadvantage of increasing the difficulty of updating to a new version of GNU `gettext'. Also, if you have many PO files, this could somewhat pollute your single directory. In the GNU `gettext' distribution, the `misc/' directory contains a shell script named `combine-sh'. That script may be used for combining all the C files of the `intl/' directory into a pair of C files (one `.c' and one `.h'). Those two generated files would fit more easily in a flat directory structure, and you will then have to add these two files to your project. Maybe because GNU `gettext' itself has a non-flat structure, we have more experience with this approach, and this is what will be described in the remaining of this chapter. Some maintainers might use this as an opportunity to unflatten their package structure. Only later, once gained more experience adapting GNU `gettext' to flat distributions, we might add some notes about how to proceed in flat situations.  File: gettext.info, Node: Prerequisites, Next: gettextize Invocation, Prev: Flat and Non-Flat, Up: Maintainers Prerequisite Works ================== There are some works which are required for using GNU `gettext' in one of your package. These works have some kind of generality that escape the point by point descriptions used in the remainder of this chapter. So, we describe them here. * Before attempting to use you should install some other packages first. Ensure that recent versions of GNU `m4', GNU Autoconf and GNU `gettext' are already installed at your site, and if not, proceed to do this first. If you got to install these things, beware that GNU `m4' must be fully installed before GNU Autoconf is even *configured*. To further ease the task of a package maintainer the `automake' package was designed and implemented. GNU `gettext' now uses this tool and the `Makefile's in the `intl/' and `po/' therefore know about all the goals necessary for using `automake' and `libintl' in one project. Those four packages are only needed to you, as a maintainer; the installers of your own package and end users do not really need any of GNU `m4', GNU Autoconf, GNU `gettext', or GNU `automake' for successfully installing and running your package, with messages properly translated. But this is not completely true if you provide internationalized shell scripts within your own package: GNU `gettext' shall then be installed at the user site if the end users want to see the translation of shell script messages. * Your package should use Autoconf and have a `configure.in' file. If it does not, you have to learn how. The Autoconf documentation is quite well written, it is a good idea that you print it and get familiar with it. * Your C sources should have already been modified according to instructions given earlier in this manual. *Note Sources::. * Your `po/' directory should receive all PO files submitted to you by the translator teams, each having `LL.po' as a name. This is not usually easy to get translation work done before your package gets internationalized and available! Since the cycle has to start somewhere, the easiest for the maintainer is to start with absolutely no PO files, and wait until various translator teams get interested in your package, and submit PO files. It is worth adding here a few words about how the maintainer should ideally behave with PO files submissions. As a maintainer, your role is to authentify the origin of the submission as being the representative of the appropriate translating teams of the Translation Project (forward the submission to `translation@iro.umontreal.ca' in case of doubt), to ensure that the PO file format is not severely broken and does not prevent successful installation, and for the rest, to merely to put these PO files in `po/' for distribution. As a maintainer, you do not have to take on your shoulders the responsibility of checking if the translations are adequate or complete, and should avoid diving into linguistic matters. Translation teams drive themselves and are fully responsible of their linguistic choices for the Translation Project. Keep in mind that translator teams are *not* driven by maintainers. You can help by carefully redirecting all communications and reports from users about linguistic matters to the appropriate translation team, or explain users how to reach or join their team. The simplest might be to send them the `ABOUT-NLS' file. Maintainers should *never ever* apply PO file bug reports themselves, short-cutting translation teams. If some translator has difficulty to get some of her points through her team, it should not be an issue for her to directly negotiate translations with maintainers. Teams ought to settle their problems themselves, if any. If you, as a maintainer, ever think there is a real problem with a team, please never try to *solve* a team's problem on your own.  File: gettext.info, Node: gettextize Invocation, Next: Adjusting Files, Prev: Prerequisites, Up: Maintainers Invoking the `gettextize' Program ================================= Some files are consistently and identically needed in every package internationalized through GNU `gettext'. As a matter of convenience, the `gettextize' program puts all these files right in your package. This program has the following synopsis: gettextize [ OPTION... ] [ DIRECTORY ] and accepts the following options: `-c' `--copy' Copy the needed files instead of making symbolic links. Using links would allow the package to always use the latest `gettext' code available on the system, but it might disturb some mechanism the maintainer is used to apply to the sources. Because running `gettextize' is easy there shouldn't be problems with using copies. `-f' `--force' Force replacement of files which already exist. `-h' `--help' Display this help and exit. `--version' Output version information and exit. If DIRECTORY is given, this is the top level directory of a package to prepare for using GNU `gettext'. If not given, it is assumed that the current directory is the top level directory of such a package. The program `gettextize' provides the following files. However, no existing file will be replaced unless the option `--force' (`-f') is specified. 1. The `ABOUT-NLS' file is copied in the main directory of your package, the one being at the top level. This file gives the main indications about how to install and use the Native Language Support features of your program. You might elect to use a more recent copy of this `ABOUT-NLS' file than the one provided through `gettextize', if you have one handy. You may also fetch a more recent copy of file `ABOUT-NLS' from Translation Project sites, and from most GNU archive sites. 2. A `po/' directory is created for eventually holding all translation files, but initially only containing the file `po/Makefile.in.in' from the GNU `gettext' distribution. (beware the double `.in' in the file name). If the `po/' directory already exists, it will be preserved along with the files it contains, and only `Makefile.in.in' will be overwritten. 3. A `intl/' directory is created and filled with most of the files originally in the `intl/' directory of the GNU `gettext' distribution. Also, if option `--force' (`-f') is given, the `intl/' directory is emptied first. If your site support symbolic links, `gettextize' will not actually copy the files into your package, but establish symbolic links instead. This avoids duplicating the disk space needed in all packages. Merely using the `-h' option while creating the `tar' archive of your distribution will resolve each link by an actual copy in the distribution archive. So, to insist, you really should use `-h' option with `tar' within your `dist' goal of your main `Makefile.in'. It is interesting to understand that most new files for supporting GNU `gettext' facilities in one package go in `intl/' and `po/' subdirectories. One distinction between these two directories is that `intl/' is meant to be completely identical in all packages using GNU `gettext', while all newly created files, which have to be different, go into `po/'. There is a common `Makefile.in.in' in `po/', because the `po/' directory needs its own `Makefile', and it has been designed so it can be identical in all packages.