wineserver: Fix French manpage

Frédéric Delanoy frederic.delanoy at
Mon Apr 12 06:45:09 CDT 2010

2010/4/12 Nicolas Le Cam <niko.lecam at>:
> Le 12 avril 2010 11:02, Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.delanoy at> a écrit :
>> 2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam <niko.lecam at>:
>>> Le 9 avril 2010 13:30, Frédéric Delanoy <frederic.delanoy at> a écrit :
>>>> 2010/4/9 Nicolas Le Cam <niko.lecam at>:
>>>>> Hi Frédéric,
>>>>>>+processus clients se sont terminés. Ceci évite le coût inhérent à l'arrêt
>>>>> sont -> soient
>>>>>>+\fIwineserver\fR dans le chemin système ou quelques autres emplacements vraisemblables.
>>>>> "potentiels" or "possibles" suit better.
>>>> My understanding was that it looked first in the system path, then
>>>> tried in, e.g., the home dir or other
>>>> directories.
>>>> I guess it looks in a hardcoded list of dirs, or sthg like that. In
>>>> that sense, "possibles" does not fit IMO.
>>>> "potentiels" or "vraisemblables" could both fit, but I wanted to
>>>> insist on the probability for the command
>>>> to be there (sthg like P[potentiels] < P[vraisemblables]).
>>>> Frédéric
>>> It tries PATH and BINDIR (and server/wineserver if in a build
>>> directory). See
>>> So 'potentiels' or 'possibles' fit better IMHO.
>> "Probables" may possibly fit even better (altough "potentiels" should be OK)?
>> Frédéric
> IMHO, "Probables" or "Vraisemblables" mean that it tries randomly some
> paths and isn't at all certain to succeed, IOW it sounds really weak ;
> where "Potentiels" or "Possibles" mean that if wineserver can't be
> found in a fixed number of (logically computed) places, you need to
> fix your system because you have a problem. I really prefer the second
> option.

OK for "potentiels" in that case (although "probables" seems stronger
than "possibles" IMHO)


More information about the wine-devel mailing list