[ Since you seem to like redundant stuff: GO AWAY WITH YOUR PRIVATE REPLIES. GUESS WHAT, I READ THE LIST, OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T HAVE ANSWERED. ] Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> (14/04/2009): > > Any reason not to make that “sourceful uploads”? > > Well, the maintainer will be making the initial TDeb upload > (effectively +t0) so the restriction does normally only affect > non-maintainer uploads. > > http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep4/#index9h2 You probably need to clarify in your DEP what “initial” means. It can (AFAICT, I'm no native speaker etc.) be understood as the first time ever translation stuff is set up (once the toolchain is in place), or the first upload without additional translations (that would be +tN uploads, N>0), which, I would *guess* could be either an MU or an NMU. > I suppose the maintainer might be the one doing the +t1 upload in > order to avoid a source rebuild during a release freeze - but I can't > say whether that's going to be particularly common. Well. If people send translations through the BTS, or whatever other means, why wouldn't the maintainer be the one merging them in a translation-only upload? That would mean spared buildd cycles, eventually letting the last revision age in unstable, lowering the pressure on the translators since translations could still be sent and incorporated while the buildds are doing their job, and while the package is aging. Note that I've read (yet?) your whole proposal, and that your summary was quite terse anyway. But that's the kind of things one would want to see if a whole translation process is made official. > (If the maintainer did a string freeze before the upload that went > into testing prior to the release freeze, it shouldn't be necessary.) > There might be cases where a debconf question needs to be changed > without needing any changes in the source package itself and if that > happens during a release freeze then the maintainer could be the one > to do it - can't see that happening that often. I don't want to be uploading a package each time I receive a new/updated translation, so I would be using +tN uploads. Hence my initial question about MU vs NMU. > Might be better to document that later in the Specification rather > than in the abstract. No. Clarifying the actual intent in the abstract looks like a must to me. Do you want to make it trivial and costless to add/update translations, or do you only want to avoid l10n-only NMUs? Mraw, KiBi.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature