Re: Translations sleeping in the BTS (was: Re: non-DD contributors and the debian keyring)
Quoting Stephen Frost (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> > I, for sure, cannot hijack any package for which nothing has been done
> > for translation related bugs. I would quickly end up with dozens of
> > packages I'm responsible for, the majority of which I'm perfectly
> > unable to maintain.
> If you can't maintain the package then you shouldn't be NMU'ing it.
> It's real simple, learn that.
Wow....There's a strong difference between maintaining a package,
which means following it along its entire life and making one single
fix for a very specific thing.
I'm perfectly able to do the changes required by the NMU i send,
mostly po-debconf switches or translation incormoration. But, if a bug
related to something completely different in the package occurs, then
I cannot fix it be cause I'm not invloved in the given software.
For what I read, it is not required to be able to maintain everything
for a given package for being able to NMU it. It is just required to
be able to fix possible introduced bugs....
> > But I cannot leave also. Nothing in these packages tells me that they
> > are unused, or useless or whatever. As they're kept in the archive, I
> > suppose they are either used, or to be used, by someone. This may of
> > course be wrong for some of them, but I'm perfectly unable to
> > determine this.
> Don't leave it alone, bitch to the maintainer, bring it up on d-d, etc.
> I didn't say just leave it alone, I said don't NMU or hijack it unless
> you can actually maintain it.
I *CAN* maintain.....what I change. So my reading of our policy tells
me that it's OK to NMU.
> > I also hate to see valuable work such as the one made by translation
> > teams (or some motivated individuals) dying slowly in the BTS like
> > some russian translations I find regularly, which are so old that
> > they're most often outdated....just because the damn maintainer was
> > too lazy to try to figure out how to use them....
> If they're more complex than a patch then obviously you could make it
> simpler/easier by making it into a patch. Every DD should know how to
> use a patch.
They're not complex at all. Most of the time (for russian
translations), it is just required to know how to uudecode file and
how should a debconf translation be named... :-)
> > I respect the usage in Debian and file my translation-related bugs as
> > "wishlist"....but am not really satisfied with this.
> So work to actually get it changed.
This is precisely what's currently happening.. :-)