Re: RFD: translated description with dpkg
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.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: