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

Re: DDTSS broken (was: Description-less Packages indices)

Hi Martin and l10n/i18n teams!

  I know nothing about l10n/i18n and the associated services (except
  for the bubulle-powered statistics auto-blogging one).

Martin Eberhard Schauer <Martin.E.Schauer@gmx.de> (21/02/2012):
> > As I can't magically fix all this by myself, I think that the only
> > choice I have is detailing the simple alternative we have:
> >
> >- revert the change that drop long descriptions from Packages files
> >
> >- live with the localization effort of packages descriptions being
> >   broken and several localization teams demotivated
> ... especially the most active ones until now
> The next step after fixing the bug will be cleaning the database
> from about 30+K useless entrys.

if you can deal with my angry tone in my last mail[L] to the said bug
report, you might see we have a way to identify all the short
descriptions that need fixing (as in: removing from the databases).

 1. Thanks to the English translation, we can get back to the long
 2. If the long description and the one in the Packages file don't
    match, this means we have spotted a short description that might
    need removing.
 3. If there's such a description indexed in the database, it needs
    to be noted down, and removed.
 4. Once all useless descriptions are spotted, propagate the removal
    requests to DDTSS.

Since I don't know how DDTSS is plugged into that, I'm not sure how
the “removal propagation” can be done; but that sure looks like it's
automatable. Meaning happy translators, I hope.

It might be a nice idea to clone #657557: if my patches actually do the
right thing, both long and translated descriptions should show up again
on packages.debian.org; but then the DDTSS database would still need a
clean-up, which is what I propose we track in the cloned bug report,
assigned to whomever you want. Feel free to Cc me when you do so, so
that I can give a hand. Building a PoC and checking with DDTSSS people
whether the proposed removals make sense should be doable.

 L. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=657557#59


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: