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. > Bug some package maintainer don't support translations, don't have time, > collect the translations to avoid upload, wait for a new upstream > version, ... 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 believe batching the translations bugs in reasonable (to-be-determined) intervals, and providing good integration with the BTS to avoid unnecessary duplicate bugs, would help reduce the wait time for uploads. I also believe that if we have maintainers who are obstructing translation updates, this is a social problem that needs to be addressed as a community, because these maintainers are probably also obstructing other sorts of needed updates. > > I signed up to receive description translations by email when this > > service was first made available, even though there is no way for a > > maintainer to directly use translations today. But when the DDTP started > > translating debconf templates, no emails were sent. No bugs were > > sent, even though this is clearly something package maintainers are in a > > position to address (the primary complaint about description > > translations). Why? > Because of: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2001/debian-vote-200110/msg00000.html Apples and oranges. Do you understand that the reason people objected was not because they're opposed to translations, but because they were frustrated at receiving emails about translations they were not empowered to address? Developers are empowered to deal with translations of debconf templates. Are you aware that Branden, who proposed that GR, not only pleasantly accepts bugs about debconf translations -- he also solicits translations before he uploads a package containing new templates? > 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. > > I have tried to navigate the DDTP website to find debconf translations. > > The pages are difficult to navigate and slow to load. I care quite a bit > > about l10n, but these pages are too cumbersome for me to be bothered > > with. > The webpages are in progress... > Use the PTS and you will find your translations. Use the PTS and you > will get your mails... See the announcement some weeks ago... Hmm -- as noted, maintainers shouldn't have to subscribe to the PTS to get reports about their own packages. Also, this doesn't help NMUers, nor does it help if maintainers are working on their packages while away from their email. > > And what happens if the maintainer makes a change to the template shipped > > in the package, but the external language-specific template file is not > > updated? I absolutely DO object to any approach that could result in a > > user seeing an out-of-sync l10n template instead of an up-to-date English > > template. The best way to deliver up-to-date translations to our users > > is by specifically *involving* the maintainers, not by working around > > them. > 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? :) -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp9uiJ2wrp5O.pgp
Description: PGP signature