On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 12:57:17AM +0200, Michael Bramer wrote: > sorry, but this is not 'us' problem. This is so ungrammatical I don't even know what you mean. > If I get a whislist bug like 'please add this feature', this feature > are not (yet) part of the package. And maybe I (as maintainer) can't > add it now. > > read the notification as whislist bug report for a new feature. Then file it as a wishlist bug. Except that will get you flamed as well, *BECAUSE THE PACKAGE MAINTAINERS CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL DPKG SUPPORTS LOCALIZED PACKAGE DESCRIPTIONS*. Go ahead. Switch to filing bugs. I dare you. > (maybe the maintainers should 'reassign' this bugs to dpkg and/or > apt?) Sure. Great idea. File all the bugs against dpkg or apt. Go ahead. I dare you. > > Only of the NMU policy applies, which it does not, because: > > > > * there is no file in the package to patch; > > * no upload of the package is necessary for the translation to be made > > available > > but some users use the translation already. Using what interface? What options can they give to dpkg or apt to show them the localized package description? If they're using the translation on the ddts website, why does the package maintainer need to be mailed if he doesn't want to be? > We have now translated Packages files for the users and the > translators. We have po files now. Some users don't see the english > descriptions already. This is all like a NMU... It's nothing like an NMU. There is nothing the package maintainer can do to get dpkg or apt to see the localized descriptions. > And if the ftp master change the override file, the maintainer get a > notification too... This is also like a NMU. Maintainers don't get notifications when the FTP masters change the overrides file. They get notices of differences between the overrides file and their control data when packages they upload are installed. > Maybe the ddts should send the notifications to the bts as 'whislist' > bugs? (I don't propose this. I only ask you...) This would be preferable to your existing spam policy. > And if you maintain a debian package, you get mails per > @packages.debian.org. This is not unsolicitedly. If you don't like > this mails, don't maintain debian packages... So I should set up bots to send mails to *@packages.debian.org containing anything I want, and the package maintainers don't have a leg to stand on, because by maintaining Debian packages they have no right to complain about any email they receive? > > > The whole issue is all a false front for people whom hate I18N, and will > > > not let the truth stand in the way of their hatred. > > > > Irrational, illogical, and false. > > NO. Yes. Irrational, illogical, and false. I don't hate i18n, as any number of people who've worked with me in better i18n and l10n in XFree86 will tell you. I would name names, but a perusal of the XFree86 package changelog will give you plenty. > > I, for instance, have pleaded on multiple occasions for more > > translations of the debconf templates in my X packages, and yet the > > translators for most languages have been inactive for months. Still, > > when I get them, I typically update my packages with them quickly, and > > thank the submitters. > > this 'inactive for months' is a problem of the framework. I post this > already in may first mail! The fact that the people who translate my debconf templates are inactive is not *my* problem, it's theirs. All I can do is beg for translations. I can't force people to do them. > This was my first translation project in debian. Without a real > framework, only a web page for some coordination. (see > http://auric.debian.org/~grisu/debian_translation) And we get >75% of > german translation as a result. > > But we don't get a real tracking. If debconf templates changed, the > translator don't get a notification. This was bad. And for the next > project (the descriptions) I write a coordination server. That's all well and good. Just cut it out with the unsolicited automatic emails. > you can do something with it: > - you can collect it What's the point of that? Doesn't DDTS keep track of them FOR me? > - you can check it in a coarser way > - you can check it, if you know one or more languages I know some German, Spanish, and French, but not with enough facility to identify any but the crudest of grammatical or spelling errors. It's more efficient if I leave the vetting of translations to people who are fluent in the language. If I feel competent to assist with a translation, I should have access to a mechanism to opt-into this process. *It should not be ASSUMED that I have facility with a majority of the languages for which I will receive translations.* Your "opt-out" system assumes that people will get more mails that are useful to them than won't be. But I doubt very many Debian developers speak more than three languages fluently. I suspect a majority speak no more than two languages fluently, and a large number only speak one fluently. Therefore, most of the mails you send to package maintainers will be useless under an opt-out system. > - you can think about translations and change/write some patches to > use this all. That's not justification for sending me an email per package per translation. All four of your justifications for sending automatic, unsolicited mail are insufficient. -- G. Branden Robinson | "There is no gravity in space." Debian GNU/Linux | "Then how could astronauts walk email@example.com | around on the Moon?" http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | "Because they wore heavy boots."
Description: PGP signature