Re: Dpkg translation schedule and current issues

[Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org>]

Hi!

On Wed, 2014-04-30 at 21:13:00 +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> given that the Freeze is approaching I'm asking when the major string
> changes announced in [1] are completed so that languages may start
> their update efforts, espeically for the man pages (I took the
> liberty to CC the translators you also CC'ed to make them aware of
> this as well) .

Sorry I've left this aside, I was not feeling very motivated for a
while, will try to get back to this so that translations can start
sometime before the freeze. What I'm thinking is to stop doing any
mass string changes two months before the freeze (that would mean
four months from today), and then probably have a string freeze two
weeks before the freeze. Would that work for you all? If it's too
tight, I'm flexible about the timing.

> Secondly I understand that the dpkg update for (Old-)Stable was a
> security update and hence previous information was problematic. Given
> that only a few strings were changed (taking me a few minutes to
> update them) it still would have been great to know about these
> changes. I usually do not check for changes in the wheezy branch so it
> would be kind if you are preparing a stable upload to announce it
> somewhere (here?) some time before uploading (or after strings have
> been changed, which would be even better).

Yeah, sorry about that, in general I try to do announces, but here the
issue was under embargo, so I didn't feel it was appropriate to start
contacting translators about that. The next one also seemed urgent, so
I skipped any announcement.

In any case, there is going to be another upload for squeeze and wheezy
probably around this week, but don't know when exactly yet, so you might
want to update those strings. I forgot at the time, but some of the
strings for the first security upload should be available from master,
so I'll try to merge those myself, and I'll do a proper CFT after that.

> Finally I just recompleted the German man page translation. This took
> me some efforts as the strings have some errors and are quite
> difficult to read (and translate). I listed the precise issues below,
> but as a general rule I suggest using several simpler sentences
> instead of an all-inclusive convoluted one, this probably helps native
> readers as well.

Text and string reviews in general are very much welcome, doubly so by
native speakers. Being a non-native means that unfortunately my native
locale or lack of sufficient native skill has a high change of ending
up percolating into my writings. Other times after several passes over
a wording or phrase it stops making any sense at all, or the meaning
gets botched. I'll try to apply your advice in the future, though.

Also some times just switching to translator mode, makes one realize
the sentence does not make any sense or it's very hard to translate.
I guess I should consider translating dpkg to Catalan again.

> Here is the detailed lists:
> #: dpkg.1:214
> package installed paths - what is this? Do you mean "paths installed
> by packges"? This sentence is hard to parse all together.

> is the binary → are the binary  (I'm not sure on this one)

Well my thinking here was, “The origin (…) is (…)”, so that both match
in number. But I had my doubts too.

> The reference for "which gets" is unclear. Are you refering to the
> "information" (which I think) or to "the packages"? Maybe split into
> to sentences:
> The origin ... themselves. The information gets collected ...

I guess part of problem why I end up creating convoluted sentences is
because I don't like very much repeating myself. But I'm not sure how
to reconcile those two at times.

Ok, how about this rewording:

,---
Verifies the integrity of \fIpackage-name\fP or all packages if omitted,
by comparing information from the files installed by a package with the
files metadata information stored in the \fBdpkg\fP database. The origin
of the files metadata information in the database is the binary packages
themselves. That metadata gets collected at package unpack time during
the installation process.
`---

> dpkg-maintscript-helper.1:156
> s/suppoerted/supported/

Oops. Fixed locally now.

> dpkg-maintscript-helper.1:242
> The second sentence is unclear:
> ... by the script as set by dpkg have been setup ...
> Do you mean:
> ... for the script ... ?
> (Also isn't it setup → set up?)

Hmm, here I meant that the environment variables are required by the
script, in the way dpkg sets them up. How about:

,---
… The
\fBsupports\fP command will check if the environment variables as set
by dpkg and required by the script are present, and will consider it a
failure in case the environment is not sufficient.
`---

> dpkg-query.1:130
> I've trouble parsing the second sentence. Substituting 
> Although → Since would make more sense to me.

Ok, how about this:

,---
… Although, as long as there is still at least
one case where this command is needed (i.e. when having to remove a
damaging postrm maintainer script), and while there is no good solution
for that, this command will not get removed.
`---

> Btw. is it ok if I fix obvious (spelling) errors myself in the future
> or do you want them to be reviewed here?

As long as they are really obvious, like the above 'supported', and
that several of them from a review session are batched into a single
commit, I'm ok with that. Otherwise, I'd rather handle them myself,
if you don't mind.

Thanks,
Guillem