Re: debconf template translation
la, 01-03-2003 kello 10:33, Michael Bramer kirjoitti:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 02:26:00PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 08:04:22PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > Michael Bramer wrote:
> > > > If nobody have objections, I will produce some debonf-l10n-LANG.deb packages
> > > > with all debconf translations from the DDTP and a working debconf.conf
> > > > example...
> > >
> > > I guess you're welcome to do this but it is fundamentally a hack.
> > What happens when these packages get out of sync with the packages whose
> > templates they contain?
> debconf should not show unsynced (outdated) descriptions...
Suppose I have packages A (version 1.0) and B (version 1.0) and
debconf-l10n-fi.deb (version 1.0) having the translations for those
versions of A and B. I then upgrade A to a newer package, say, fetching
it manually from testing, even though I normally use stable.
Now I have A version 2.0 on my system, but debconf-l10n-fi.deb only
supports version 1.0 of A. Thus, debconf confusingly speaks English to
me, instead of Finnish, and not only is this ugly, but I also don't
understand English very well. This jeopardizes my ability to administer
To avoid this, we would have to abandon the idea of a
debconf-l10n-LANG.deb for each language and instead have a foo-l10n.deb
for each package. Thus, when I upgrade A 1.0 to A 2.0 I would also
upgrade A-l10n to the corresponding version. However, this would mean
that we have hundreds of extra packages, one per package that uses
debconf. I don't think this is particularly nice.
It is my opinion, therefore, that it would be better to co-operate with
the package maintainers in the following manner (I'm repeating what
others have said). When a maintainer changes his debconf templates, he
notifies the translators *before* uploading his package (unless there is
a great urgency, such a security situation). Since most changes to
debconf templates will likely be small, updated translations should be
doable quickly. Once they're done, the package maintainer adds them to
his package and uploads. This avoids a flurry of new uploads due to lots
of new translatons.
(If we as a project decide that this is what we want to do to support
l10n, then maintainers who refuse to add translations are going to be in
breach of policy.)