* Christian Perrier (bubulle@debian.org) wrote: > Quoting Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net): > > > Except what you don't realize is that one should never, ever, ever just > > NMU and then forget about the package. If you do an NMU then you need > > to make sure it worked, follow the package and make sure there aren't > > problems with it and follow up with the maintainer on the bugs. I don't > > care what you change in the package, if you NMU then you need to do that > > at a *minimum*, just as if you were the maintainer. It's not until the > > official maintainer incorporates the NMU changes and closes the bugs > > that the NMU'er can forget about it. > > But *why the hell* do you assume I don't already do this for packages > I NMU ? > > I'm really sorry, but it seems that you've decided in your mind that I > do NMU without care. I'm really sorry to say that it's exactly the > opposite. You just said that you weren't able to maintain the package. If you ever NMU a package without being able to maintain it yourself then you're "NMU'ing without care". I don't see what's hard to understand about that. > The only difference is that I follow the package the time necessary > for being sure that I didn't break anything. I don't want to follow it > indefinitely, that's all. You shouldn't have to if the maintainer is active and if he isn't then it should be orphaned to QA or removed. > And, as Steve pointed out, translation stuff is minimalistically > invasive so this does not require an enormous amount of attention > after the NMU. When you do an NMU you're taking the responsibility to maintain the package until the maintainer is active on it. If you're not willing (or able) to handle the package just for a translation then you shouldn't be doing the NMU just for the translation. > But, sorry, if a RC bug is raised which is obviously unrelated to the > things I changed, why should I care for it more than the normal wayt > (ie, if by chance I can deal with it...I *will* do just like I would > with any RC bug I'm able to fix....but if I'm perfectly unable to fix > it besides tagging the bug "help", what should be done ?) Maintainers aren't always able to fix RC bugs themselves so you should do exactly what the maintainer would do in such a case since it's against your NMU, even if it's unrelated to the specific change in your NMU it's still your NMU so it's your responsibility. The maintainer would probably tag it with help and work with upstream to find a fix for it. > Oh yes : I shouldn't have NMU'ed the package. I'd rather leave this > pt_BR.po file sent by one of the most active brazilian contributors > sleep in the BTS and slowly dying because noone cares about it. If you're not willing to be responsible for your NMU then you shouldn't do the NMU, that's correct. > We seem to have different interpretation of the various documents > which try to define common sense.. :-) Everyone has an opinion. > Nope. Your interpretation differs from mine.. :-) You see, mine is actually right though. > > Glad to hear it, perhaps some day you will, though personally I hope to > > hell you never manage to get it considered an RC bug, and I'll work to > > make sure that doesn't happen. > > This does just mean you don't care a lot about translation and can live > with an (sometimes bad) english-only distribution. It means I don't feel it should be release critical. Perhaps more than 'wishlist' but I don't feel a translation is release critical. I expect most would agree with me. > I cannot and most people cannot too. If you're confident of that then write up the appropriate language and put it to a vote. > This is why maybe some day using tools which help translation work may > become mandatory (ie po-debconf instead of plain debconf templates, > gettexted README.Debian files, translated man pages and so on...). Perhaps, though I doubt it. At least not until the overwhelming majority of the packages are already there. I think it is a very long way off before lack of complete support for a language would hold up a release. I think we would need a much larger set of people performing the translations and alot more support in the base tools, at a minimum. > Such tools make translation minimalistically invasive, thus allowing > people with limited "noble" hacking knowledge to still make > significant contributions to the whole stuff..... Sure, perhaps some day everything will support translations and we'll have a hundred or more people translating everything from debconf questions to changelog entries. I see it as quite a ways off before that happens and I don't think translations should even be considered for the possibility of being release-critical until we have such a devoted group of people who have translated basically everything in Debian. > I (and the whole l10-french team too), currently, have one goal : just > have 100% prompting made in french in my favourite Linux > distribution. The tools are there, the manpower is there and the > motivation is there also ... :-). I'm nearly sure that all l10n teams > have more or less secreteky the exact same goal (but as the french are > arrogant people, we confess our goals.....) Sounds like a noble goal but until it happens I doubt you're going to get anyone to hold up a release for it. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpxHQ64ALhVP.pgp
Description: PGP signature