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

Re: grisu and DDTS



On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 07:03:22PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> 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.

This is not the problem from grisu and the other translators.

> > 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.

I don't propose this and because of this: I don't make it.

But maybe you understand what I mean:
 You maintain a package without any po file, without any I18n or i10n
 and this package output only english text.

 Now I translate this texts and send a translation of all the text in
 your package to the bts. You can't do anything about it unit your
 upstream support localization. 

 Is this bug report SPAM?

> > (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.

a second time: I don't propose this. this is only a question. 

get the upper example:
  maybe you send this text to the upstream and hope he add gettext to
  his source in the next version... If you have time and you know C
  and gettext you maybe add a patch...

  The upstream of the translated descriptrion is dpkg and/or apt.

> > > 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?

you must only use a translated Packages file and you can use the
translated descriptions. 

maybe you add one of this lines in your apt source lists: 
 deb http://gluck.debian.org/~grisu/ddtp/aptable de/woody main
 deb http://gluck.debian.org/~grisu/ddtp/aptable de/sid main
 deb http://gluck.debian.org/~grisu/ddtp/aptable woody main

You don't need a patched dpkg or a patched apt!

With a translated Packages file all apt programs use the translated
description. 

See the gifs on http://auric.debian.org/~grisu/ddtp/ 
  dselect.gif
  dselect-ja.gif
  gnome-apt.gif
  apt-cache.gif

> 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?

some maintainers ask for this. (and more maintainers ask, as I get
cons from other maintainers...)

A debian user see first only the package description and after this he
maybe install a package. Some maintainers whould have some controll
about this first, importent text....

> > 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.

yes, he need only tranlated Packages files. Probe it. It work. 

The people from laespiral.org use this _hack_ since one or two years.
We use this hack from the beginning of the ddtp. 

And we know that this is a hack and we propose a better solution. But
this is a other story. 

> > 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.

I mean this mails.

> > 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?

not anything. But this mails is about your package. It is a
improvement. If you can't use it now, this is your problem. Like
other wishlist bugs...

> > > > 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 don't speak about you. I know the X packages and I know the debconf
coordination page...

> > > 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.

I don't say: it is your problem. 

I only say: the active framework (we don't have a real) of the debconf
            templates translation is the problem. And the ddts is a
	    (IMHO) better framework for a translation process.
 
> > 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 know: now the ddts _don't_ send automatic emails to the package
          maintainers.
 
> > 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?

yes the DDTS keep track for you, for others and for all users...

But read the first mails on debian-devel. (I propose 'don't add the
translation in the package') Some maintainers whould collect
translation self. (I don't understand this, but I respect this)

> >  - 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

but maybe some logical misunderstanding of your translation...

> more efficient if I leave the vetting of translations to people who are
> fluent in the language.

ACK.

> 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.

I say this all the time... 

> Therefore, most of the mails you send to package maintainers will be
> useless under an opt-out system.

in the next implementation you can choose your languages (like -de -fr
or +de +fr)

> >  - 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.

maybe not all. 


But now this is stoped. 

And I make a new decision only after a new discussion with a result.


Gruss
Grisu
-- 
Michael Bramer  -  a Debian Linux Developer http://www.debian.org
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org  -- Linux Sysadmin   -- Use Debian Linux
»A train station is a station where trains stops.
 But what are workstations?«

Attachment: pgpcMHWb5uwDU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: