Re: this all this xxx-jp nonsense (was: Re: ITP: grep-ja)
Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
> > lynx-ja: *
> > This is NLS handling patched version.
>
> Then it's improperly named. Why can't standard lynx support NLS?
I just checked the source because I have known lynx already supported
NLS. It seems to be disabled in upstream. I don't know why.
> SUMMARY:
>
> We can't affort to have every binary package with a l10n hack be a
> fork in Debian. This just isn't going to work.
>
> I know it's a pain but you have to just work with upstream (debian or
> all the way upstream) to get stuff patched there. Nothing else is
> acceptable, IMHO. You accepted the necessity of working with upstream
> maintainers when you agreed to the social contract. And you already
> have a staging area you can use (the Debian-JP unmerged archives), so
> people can enjoy your work before all the stuff gets integrated.
>
> I would hope we can eliminate all or most of the -ja package above in
> the course of 6 months -- I would ask that the archive maintainer stop
> accepting non-documentation l10n packages without very good cause.
>
> Again, I'm not trying to pick on you or disrespect the work you've
> done. i18n and l10n is hard and thankless. I think there's just a
> process/communications breakdown here. We let this go too long
> without doing anything about it.
IMHO, the Japanese hackers (patch creators) tend to make barriers
around their patches. I know many "Japanese" patches are general i18n
ones. But many of them do never reach to the upstreams at all, while
the patches are well known to Japanese user groups. (I don't blame
anyone. Unfortunately, so do Korean hackers. This fact really
irritates me.)
--
Changwoo RYU
Reply to: