Re: RFD: translated description with dpkg
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 04:02:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Martin Quinson wrote:
> > See for example #87698 (a 187 days old fr.po file for bug) or #90574 and
> > #93444 (160 and 141 days old fi.po and fr.po for fileutils) or #83482,
> > #83767, #83925, #83926, #92373, #92841 and #93227 (several debconf template
> > translations for lynx, between 240 and 120 days old). There are only some
> > examples between others. In fact, the translators may have the feeling that
> > there work within Debian is mostly rotting as wishlists in the BTS...
>
> If I were online right now, I'm sure I could point to hundreds if not
> thousands of bug reports that involve fixes for spelling mistakes,
> typos, and what have you in packages, (and even full source code patches
> to fix bugs), that have been ignored for similar amounts of time.
>
> This, then, is not a problem of package translations being ignored, but
> of some maintainers being MIA and/or not doing their jobs. And I don't
> think it's a new problem, or a suprise to anyone.
>
> > That's why we choosed this centralized approach. The most important to me is
> > that a simple -9/+30 patch can reach what is needed to have translated
> > descriptions in dpkg and dselect. Any other approach would lead to a policy
> > modification, and a more in-depth modification of the tools used (and the
> > re-upload of each packages to get the translation in it). So, it won't be
> > possible for woody+1 (as our solution can be), but for woody+2 or +3, or
> > even never.
>
> I've got no problem with you guys rolling out sometime right away (as
> indeed, you are already). But it's a hack, and it's not a long-term
> solution, and you need to realize that.
You may be right, but I don't understand why our solution is a hack. Using
specialized and recognized tools like gettext for translation seems pretty
honorable to me.
I think it's a little change in dpkg to allow big changes in Debian. That's
why my patch is so small.
Bye, Mt.
Reply to: