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

Re: debconf template translation



On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 01:18:52PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Note that base-config should probably be one of your priorities to get
> translated into all languges. If it is not, something is wrong.

The server use some priority for the order of the translation. And
base-config, udebs etc. are higher.

> > But sorry, I say it again: this is not a real solution for all packages (IMHO)
> >  - some package maintains don't like translations (I don't need this
> >    stuff, it is only work)
> >  - some packages are not (really) maintained. 
> 
> I have a term for people with this kind of attitude, but the term is not
> "Debian developer", nor is it suitable for polite company. This is a
> social problem, and should have a social solution. Circumventing the
> package/maintainer invarient in Debian is not the answer.

yes, but we don't need a Debian developer for translation. If the Debian
developer don't understand the translation, he only impaired the
process!

> >  - if a package have a aktiv maintainer, he must choose: 
> >    - he can make daily uploads with new/fixed translations, only work
> >      and this all hit the autobuilders
> >    - he can collect some translations stuff and make builds only all
> >      weeks/months
> 
> Realistically, this is only an issue until all (~780) packages have had
> their debconf templates fully translated into n languages, after that
> revving is only necessary for new languages, bug fixes, and changed
> English text. The last of these is already something maintainers of
> debconf transltions are aware of; lintian nags unmercifully[1] when your
> package's translations are out of date. This is a sufficient motivation.
> The first I explain how to handle below, and bug fixes are bug fixes.

I don't write only about debconf templates in the long future. I like to
translate _any_ text with any debian package. Package descriptions and
debconf templates are only the first step. 

And if the package maintainer force to include translations in his
packages (and only some will do this, the social problem), he must
upload any package once a month (or more) and this will hit the build
servers.... This is a technical problem. 

> I'd suggest something like this:
> 
> 1. DDTP finishes translating all debconf templates, fully, for n
>    languages. You pick them, one would hope they'd include the big
>    languages.
> 2. DDTP announces that everyone who has a debconf-using package should
>    now update its tranlations for all n languages. DDTP or others
>    provide a simple command-line tool that can do just that, securely,
>    with less than 2 minutes learning curve per developer. The tool is put
>    in devscripts.
> 3. Wait 4 weeks, maybe sending a few reminders.
> 4. File bugs on the remaining 25% of packages.
> 5. Wait 4 weeks.
> 6. NMU the remaining 10% of packages and report their MIA maintainers to
>    the MIA tracker. I assume this will take less than 1 month to
>    complete.
> 7. To add a new language, go to 1.
> 8. Make sure that packages that are newly converted to use debconf
>    go through steps 2-6.
> 9. Release Debian with full debconf support for all n languages.

Yes, this is the 'normal' way.

But, all this text will change with the time. And it will change not
only sometime, we have a lot of changes (believe me).

If some package have make changes, the ddtp will get the changes after
the package upload, after some times, the big languages will translate
the changes, the package must upload a second time (only for the
translations), some times later some other languages (like somes from
star trek) will translate the changes... 

> Unless you expect that getting to step 1. will take longer than a month,
> this will allow us to translate all the debconf templates in Debian to n
> languages within 4 months time. I seriously doubt we'll be freezing
> before then. If time does become a concern, you can lower n, or reduce
> some of the other numbers of course.
> 
> [ debconf db thing ]
> > A hack?
> 
> Yes, it is a technical hack around a perceived social problem.

partly. 

You don't see the technical ugly. Why must we recompiles any package on
any build server only to include some translation? Why must we wait for
the maintainer? 

> > I only find the missing version controll system in debconf a problem.
> > But this is not a translation only problem. This is a real debconf bug. 
> > 
> > I write a mail to you (joeyh) some days ago, you got this mail?
> 
> I have been digging my way out of a hole caused by a 1 month absense,
> and that mail caught me at my most overloaded point. I have not had time
> to look into it. I suggest you file a bug report or something, I don't
> lose track of those. On first very breif glance you problably need a
> specialized vrient of the stack dbdriver that does not copy stuff up the
> stack. Or something.

We need a stack dbdriver, that get the english and the translated text
and use only the translated text, if the english text is the same from
the deb file. 

This is not only a translation problem! If you stack some debconf db's
with new and old packages, you will get this problem.... (and no, sorry,
I don't fill a bug report...)

Thanks

Gruss
Grisu
-- 
Michael Bramer  -  a Debian Linux Developer      http://www.debsupport.de
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org  -- Linux Sysadmin   -- Use Debian Linux
"Der Krieg ist ein Massaker von Leuten, die sich nicht kennen,
 zum Nutzen von Leuten, die sich kennen, aber nicht massakrieren." 
                                              --- Paul Valéry

Attachment: pgplBkR9e4Ezm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: