Re: Do not touch l10n files
Manoj Srivastava wrote :
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 09:12:25 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> <jfs@computer.org> said:
>
> > Maintainers or developers do not have a say on how translations are
> > done except for gettext sintax errors. If you do not like how a
> > translation team works, but you do not understand the language,
> > tough luck.
>
> If this is a turf war between translators and developers; then
> the person with upload rights shall win.
>
> As a package developer I hold veto powers over anything
> shipped in my package, since it is my signature that goes with it,
> and I am responsible for all bugs.
and
> > On Wed, 14 May 2003 19:25:20 +0200, Denis Barbier <barbier@linuxfr.org>
> > said:
>
> > > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 02:22:36AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > >> Silly? My, we must have a chip on our choulder. Equally silly as
> > >> non-maintainers having delusions of control over what gets shipped
> > >> with a package?
>
> > > Where did I say that? I am only requesting that developers who do
> > > not speak a given language do not edit their related l10n files, but
> > > ask first a trusted person fluent in this language if changes are
> > > needed.
>
> This is no different from code: if I maintian software, and I
> may not understand all the complexities of the package in question,
> but when I think I discover a problem, I send a notice to the
> upistream (coder, translator), and, if I am not fluenbt in the
> language, I ask someone to help (who may not be the upstream
> code/translator).
>
> I then add a local patch correcting the issue until the matter
> is resolved upstream.
>
> This is a far cry from ``Do not touch l10n files''.
>
> No one expects a maintainer to change code files either if
> they result is incorrect; that is just a bug. But maintainers are not
> admonished to never touch upstream files.
>
> If ever a translation is included in my packages, I certainly
> am not going to respect such a restriction against modifying files in
> my package.
The situation is very different from the situation maintainer face with
upstream code because in fact apt should be able to install l10n packages
related to a given program package when it installs the program package.
So if l10n materials are currently integrated into program packages, instead
of being in separate l10n packages, it's because of this lack in apt. It's
not because the program package maintainer should also be responsible for
l10n stuff related to the program, like he is responsible for the code in the
program.
This lack in apt is very bad because :
- users get lot of l10n that is mostly useless for them,
- program packages are bloated with l10n stuff,
- maintainers' job is more difficult because they have to deal with stuff they
don't understand,
- maintainer feel they are responsible for l10n material in _their_ package
and feel the right to mess with the l10n material in _their_ package or to
refuse l10n stuff,
- Translators do not maintain packages so are not considered Developers and
have no vote,
- Translators have to deal with maintainers jealous of their rights on _their_
package.
Maintainers should realize that the current situation is (or should be)
temporary and so that the power they currently have on l10n stuff is
something temporary, something that they shouldn't have if things were done
properly.
So Denis is very right to say "Do not touch l10n files".
Regards,
Christian.
Reply to: