Re: debconf template translation
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:48:18AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 10:40:05AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 01:03:16PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > It's even *more* important to work with developer when translating
> > > everything else as the man pages and so on are part of the package
> > > upstream as well as in Debian.
> > In your opinion, why are these man pages shipped by manpages-fr
> > and not by their respective packages?
> The question is (or should be) as much "Why are these man pages not
> being shipped by upstream"? This is the sort of thing where it's
> important to work with upstream - there shouldn't be anything Debian
> specific about any of these manual pages.
IMO this is not the right question. If a Debian package provides
man pages, it must also provide their translations, even if
upstream does not ship them.
> Looking at the list you've posted I'm surprised that the maintainers
> have actually refused to take the translated manual pages - many of the
> programs come from util-linux and coreutils both of which already ship
> at least message files. It seems surprising that maintainers who
> already include l10n things in their packages would refuse to improve
> this functionality further. What were the reasons?
I only said that *some* DD do not want to ship translated man pages;
as I took manpages-fr over recently, I do not know whether util-linux
and coreutils are in such a case, but I know of others.
Basically I saw 3 reasons:
* they do not want to bloat the base system
* they believe that translated man pages must be maintained in
* their translated man pages conflict with some manpages-XX packages,
so they decided to remove them