Re: RFD: translated description with dpkg
On 29-Aug-01, 21:49 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> wrote:
> >>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <stevegr@debian.org> writes:
>
> I maintain kernel-package. I have no idea what it takes to
> maintain kernel image packages for i386, much less for other
> archs. But I also have people who do, and who help me put together a
> working kernel-package package.
>
> Linus himself admits he just works with 5% of kernel code; he
> has delegated trust and responsibility.
He has delegated trust to those who have demonstrated such
responsibility, by evaluating their work. I am quite willing to let a
group manage translations; that's what I want. My point, which people
seem to keep ignoring, is that I *personally* have no way of judging the
quality of a translation. Therefore, I cannot take responsibility for
including random translation submissions into my package.
>
> These are my packages. I am responsible. Mine! Mine! all
> Mine! is a bad way to think of your relationship to your packages.
Maybe I communicate badly, but that is not at all what I said. Would
you include arbitrary MIPS assembly code patches into your packages?
And in fact, I have a better chance of correctly decoding arbitrary
assembly code than, say, Mandarin. Or Greek. I'm happy to accept and
consider patches to my packages. But if I just incorporated them with
checking, you, Manoj, would be first in line to criticize me. And you'd
be completely justified.
I'll try this one more time: I don't have any objection to translations.
I've several practical objections to making the package maintainer
responsible for those translations by putting them in the .deb package.
Among those objections are that I can't evaluate those translations;
significant bloat that affects everyone; and either delay in making
new/fixed translations available or frequent uploads that affect only
the Packages file, but have the practical effect of causing everybody to
upgrade.
Steve
Reply to: