glibc translated man pages (was Re: cvs commit to glibc-package/debian/packages.d by gotom)
Is resurrecting an old thread a good idea? I am not sure, this is why
I removed the line below from headers:
In-Reply-To: <80bs2u48pq.wl@oris.opensource.jp>
Blame me if I should not have broken this thread.
Subject has also been updated.
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 12:08:17AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:26:45 +0100,
> Denis Barbier wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:04:52PM -0700, Debian GLibc CVS Master wrote:
> > > Repository: glibc-package/debian/packages.d
> > > who: gotom
> > > time: Sat Jan 4 18:04:52 MST 2003
> > > Log Message:
> > > - debian/packages.d/glibc-doc.mk: install linuxthreads/man/*.man
> > > manpages into glibc-doc package. (Closes: #155794)
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > IIRC French translations are available, do you want to ship them in
> > glibc-doc or should they go to manpages-fr?
>
> Hmm, it's a bit difficult issue. In first, I think they should go in
> manpages-fr.
>
> There are some points of view of this:
>
> * Whether translated manpages should go in upstream or not.
> * Whether translated manpages are only available on Debian or not.
> * Whether including French manpages which are only translated langueage
> should be in glibc package or not.
> * How to maintain French manpages in debian.
Hi,
facing this issue many times, I asked on debian-devel what to do:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg01089.html
and as I forgot to Cc:debian-i18n, a separate thread started here:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-i18n/2003/debian-i18n-200305/msg00004.html
There seems to be a consensus that translated man pages should be shipped
with original, and manpages-XX packages should only contain translations
of the manpages package.
> Upstream supports info, not manpages, because GNU Project pushes info.
> So, I guess they don't hope the form of manpages. However, asking
> upstream about this issue is interested for me because we can know
> their stance about their document translation.
You (glibc maintainers) maintain and ship man pages, there is no reason
not to ship translated man pages. OTOH if you remove English man pages,
I won't ask you to include these translations.
Localizing info files is a different issue.
> BTW, I'm one of members in JM (Japanese Manpages) project
> (http://www.linux.or.jp/JM). JM distributes all translated manpages,
> like LDP (Linux Documentation Project). Debian has it named as
> manpages-ja. We (including me) translated linuxthreads manpages, and
> we decided that Japanese translations for linuxthreads went in
> manpages-ja, not glibc. There were some reasons: originally it was
> written by Xavier Leroy, then it was included in glibc. JM project is
> expert team to translate manuals in Japanese. Upstream seems not to
> care for manpages. Etc...
Right, but there are many other problems: conflicts can occur when
upstream ships translations, keeping translations up to date is more
difficult when files belong to different packages,....
> I don't know how manpages-fr and France translations are maintained.
> If you think it's suitable for including in upstream, we start to
> discuss with upstream (but I don't expect the good result!). Or if
> you think each documentation/manual should go into original package,
> not manpages-*, hmm, I reconsider about this issue.
> If including in manpages-fr benefits something (for example, other
> distributions), you select inclusion for manpages-fr.
>
> However, at least, I can't read French. If package maintainers may
> not care such translated manpages, such documents become out of date
> in future. It's not good.
This is indeed a problem because there is no standardized way to know when
translations are outdated. As a package maintainer, you can adapt what
was done for boot-floppies, i.e. insert into translated files the CVS
revision of original file with a specific markup.
Julien Louis and I took another approach for Debian specific man pages
http://cvs.debian.org/manpages/?cvsroot=debian-doc
with a framework similar to the one used by www.d.o,
Metadata have been put into separate files (named INFOS) because we have
no control on man pages format.
Denis
Reply to: