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

Re: debconf template translation



On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 01:28:04PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:36:28AM +0100, Michael Bramer wrote:
> 
> > _three_ years ago I start a debconf translation coordination web page
> > and we translate debconf templates, bug the packages and put the bts
> > numbers on the webpage. (The page start with 200 packages with debconf
> > templates, and was growing with the time.)
> 
> > Some packages use the send translations and close the bugs. Thanks again
> > to all this package maintainers.
> 
> In that time, I haven't seen any debconf translation reports filed in the
> BTS on any packages I maintain/follow.  Maybe some of the translated
> templates came from the DDTP, and didn't say; but in general, I've been
> disappointed with the lack of translations submitted for my own packages.

only for the record:
 This web page was only a 'coordination page'. A translator could ot it,
 search a untranslated debconf template, translate it, send it to the
 BTS and send the bug number to my. After this I add the number of the
 bug on the page per hand. 

 I add some hundred bug numbers to the page in two years and yes, most
 of the (German) debconf translations came from this page...

> If these translations were collected into a debconf-de-l10n package, how
> often would you upload this package?  Every time a new translated
> template was ready?  Every week?

I thing about every 14 days, to get the package into testing. And I will
only include the templates, who don't have translations in the package
itself. This should be a good compromise!?

> > and 
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html#s-submit-many-bugs
> 
> IMHO, that pertains to mass-filing of bugs that are identical, and which
> can be checked for automatically using tools like lintian.  Bug reports
> containing translations are each different.  It's the difference between
> mass-filing of bug reports because programs are missing manpages, and
> mass-filing of bug reports tagged 'patch' because someone has done the
> work of writing all the manpages.
> 
> I understand that response to the initial DDTP rollout was a negative
> experience for you, but I also think that not filing bugs for debconf
> templates is an overreaction that will hurt us.

If I count it right, we have 5493 new translations from 452 binary
packages in the DDTP db. IMHO it is not usefull to submit all this bug. 

A nice list with download links should be better. After an announce and
some weeks we can bug the outstanding packages... 

> > I object too. debconf should never show a outdated text (languorous if
> > this is a english or a translated text).  But this is a debconf bug and
> > not a bug of the translation. 
> 
> However, because this is a new feature (I don't think debconf has ever
> been advertised to work this way), it is a wishlist bug.  Hmm -- if
> maintainers can't be trusted to fix minor bugs on their packages, how is
> it better to make the entire system depend on getting a wishlist bug
> fixed? :)

:-)

count it, one bug opposite to some hundred bugs.

Gruss
Grisu
-- 
Michael Bramer  -  a Debian Linux Developer      http://www.debsupport.de
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org  -- Linux Sysadmin   -- Use Debian Linux
Original Kundenzitat: "Firewall will das Management nicht, es reicht,
wenn wir am Wochenende den Netzwerstecker aus dem Server ziehen"

Attachment: pgpJJUg2fV4pu.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: