Rockbox General > Rockbox General Discussion

Has an "upgrade" been considered for the current translation method?

(1/1)

bugmenot:
The old one seems a bit dated in some aspects, that includes the lack of a required profile:

https://translate.rockbox.org/

So I've been thinking:
"What if we switch over to either an easy-to-use self hosted free method like Weblate, or a well-known method like Transifex, or something similar?"

I mean, if it really is in some kind of demand... I just suggested it.

speachy:
I'm not sure what you mean by "lack of a required profile" -- do you mean some sort of login?

But the short answer to your question is that either (1) a plugin/module for Weblate or Transifex would need to be written to get them to understand Rockbox's language file format, or (2) Rockbox's translation tooling would need to be rewritten to utilize a format that Weblate or Transifex already supports.  Oh, and the latter would require converting the existing files too.

Either way it's a substantial amount of work, and we're not exactly swimming in volunteers that are willing and/or able to tackle either approach.

I should point out that Rockbox's language files are more complex than (eg) gettext po files, because for a given phrase ID, the "display" vs "voiced" translation can be different.  To further complicate things, the same phrase ID can be different on a per-device basis (such as button names or hardware-dependent features).  I'm not sure any "standard" translation format can really map to what we need without a great deal of (IMO pointless) rework and bug-reintroducing churn, so realistically (1) is the way to proceed should someone be suitably motivated.

Now that said, I do think getting weblate/etc hooked up would greatly help with rbutil, which utilizes standard QT .ts files.  But that's a separate discussion.

bugmenot:
I wouldn't have asked if it wasn't possible to a degree.

By the "required profile", I meant that just about anybody can enter the site, save their translation on their own computer (if they don't accidenally close the tab first), before posting it manually to the FlySpray page by having to make an account for just one .txt file. That feels like a very unreliable method in this day and age...

As for the new methods that I mentioned...
It seems like both of them support just about everything these days:

https://docs.weblate.org/en/latest/formats.html
https://docs.transifex.com/formats/introduction

With Weblate making specific mention of the "translate-toolkit" with the ability of configuring your own custom method:

https://docs.weblate.org/en/latest/formats.html#supporting-other-formats
https://toolkit.translatehouse.org/

So yeah... I'm just advising in case you still have some interest.

speachy:
Again, of course it's possible technically -- it's all just software.

I'd love to have support for our language file format on Weblate.  In fact, I've had that on my "long-term rockbox to-do" list for about two years now.

In the end someone has to do the _actual work_.  We barely have enough folks willing/able to keep the metaphorical lights on, much less rework major cross-modal subsystems.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

Go to full version