[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ddts: notification about pt_BR-translation of the hello-debhelper description

On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:07:40AM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

> > The description is part of the package, can we agree on that one?
> > What is the difference between a translated description and the
> > original one, except for which language it is written in?

The original, canonical, description is part of the package, and a
necessary part at that. Others aren't.

They're just different representations of the original one, and don't
*need* to be provided by the maintainer. If the maintainer chooses to
provide, obtain, manage translations, fine. If not, also fine. The
translations are not a necessary part of the package, they are related
to it, and could be provided however is most convenient for the situation
at hand - not necessarily in one big lump.

> Well, all descriptions are in english by default and there is no real reason
> to store every description for every package on every machine/archive.


> > The package is the responsibility of the maintainer, and s/he has the
> > final words on all aspects of how it should be packaged (subject to
> > policy, of course).  To me, it looks like you want this changed, which
> > I think is a bad idea.
> But then the maintainer has to take full responsibility to maintain the
> translations. And several maintainers have said they don't even want to know
> about new translations since they can be added without any action on their
> part.

Exactly again.

If translations are available both from the maintainer and from a separate
translation archive, it should be up to the user to decide which they want
to use. That would allow for all sorts of flexibility - as I said before,
you could even have different "translations" in the same language. I can
think of at least one way in which this could be useful.



Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
Someone whom you reject today, will reject you tomorrow.

Reply to: