linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Doc:it_IT: Do not reference kernel.h anymore

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <klzag46p6mlqqdrogqofancqyjpvs5lmwa4m3tjszcgavdwa6s@nay2uuwpsvlt>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2025 17:14:02 +0100
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@...a.pv.it>
Cc: linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	workflows@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Doc:it_IT: Do not reference kernel.h anymore

Hi Federico,

> >-Il file di intestazione include/linux/kernel.h contiene un certo numero
> >-di macro che dovreste usare piuttosto che implementarne una qualche variante.
> >-Per esempio, se dovete calcolare la lunghezza di un vettore, sfruttate la
> >-macro:
> >+I file header
> 
> In Italian, the correct name for "header file" is "file di intestazione".
> Please, don't replace correct Italian with *Itanglese* :)

I absolutely disagree.

If you open any C book, they are called 'header files', except
for a few Italian technical books with excessively literal
translations, where even non-translatable terms are translated.

Italian technical translations usually preserve the original
English terms as much as possible, which is quite different from
what often happens in French or German.

'File di intestazione' is a literal word-by-word translation.
If you want the proper technical term, it is 'header file'.

> >presenti in include/linux mettono a disposizione numerose macro
> >+che è preferibile utilizzare, evitando di sviluppare implementazioni
> >+alternative.
> 
> I think it is less accurate. In English, it tells users what they "should do"
> and "should not do". It does not speak about what is preferable and what to
> avoid. I agree that, at the end of the day, one should come at the same
> conclusions. However, the translation should be as accurate as possible and
> make adaptations wherever necessary to improve the understanding.
> 
> A would be perfectly fine if also the English statement changes in the same
> direction.

I think a literal translation is not beneficial to the final
text, and we have some room to rephrase it while keeping the
original meaning intact.

Andi