Re: debconf template translation
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:10:56AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:50:00PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > I filed many bugreports to make DD realize that they must put translated
> > templates into separate files. Some DD did not like this idea because
> How often does this happen? Is it the exception rather than the rule?
It is the exception. I do not have access just now to the data I
collected, but it was roughly around 5% for the bugreports I filed.
> If it is the exception then it should be a lot easier to deal with -
> once most packages do the right thing it should become a lot easier to
> convince people to DTRT.
No, convincing people they are wrong takes much more time than expected ;)
> > Po-debconf must be used instead of debconf-utils in order to generate
> > translated templates with such fields. but according to
> > http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po-debconf/
> > very few packages (around 30, plus debian-installer packages) made this
> > transition.
> How much effort has there been to provide updated translations using
> these fields to maintainers and otherwise encourage them to use this
> feature? As far as I can remember I've not had any translations
> provided for any of my packages otherwise heard that this feature is
> something I should be using since before Debconf 1.2.0 was released.
> Presumably I'm not alone in this - it's not that I'm actively avoiding
> doing it, it's just that I had no idea that I should be doing it.
Hmmm, I do not understand this paragraph, sorry.
> > Etc. Thus if there is a solution which improves l10n without having to
> > waste my time with endless discussions, I'll be happy.
> The idea that was floated about allowing maintainers to pull updated
> translations for their packages from the translation project database
> seems like a good one to me, as does providing a means for maintainers
> to submit things for translation before uploading. A nag mail similar
> to the RC bugs list detailing outdated translations might also help.
Sure, but first step is to have translated templates in separate files,
otherwise there is no way to know when translations are outdated
(except by the DDTS, which contains an history of previous templates).
> Ensuring that the packaging documentation includes guidance on making
> packages l10n ready would also be helpful - if nothing else, it ought to
> help new packages.
May I suggest you to re-read this documentation? ;)
> Even if nothing new is done we should at least making sure that the
> tools we have are being used as well as they can be so that when
> everything goes according to plan the translations get used and when
> things don't work we can see that happening more readily.