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

Bug#235759: Bug#228486: No mention of german quotes in release-notes yet



Hello,
(CC:ed Project Leader to help resolve this issue)
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 06:19:33PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At Sat, 11 Dec 2004 14:24:55 +0000,
> Rob Bradford wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 05:41:41PM +0100, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >                                    (please CC: me on replies, thanks)
> > > I pulled the release notes from
> > > http://cvs.debian.org/ddp/manuals.sgml/release-notes/en/release-notes.en.sgml?cvsroot=debian-doc
> > 
> > Fixed. Note, there is no current German translation available.
> 
> I disagreed to add such description in the release notes.  Rob, I'm
> sorry even you already worked it, but I hope you remove it again.
> Could you delete it?
> 
> I think the phrase "use UTF-8" is nice, but I concern the following
> context will become wrong interpretation in future:
> 
>     "The locales for German style languages (e.g. de_DE@euro)
>      unfortunately use an aesthetically unpleasing way of representing
>      open quotation marks."
> 
> I think we have not finished such discussion.  Even some German debian
> developers doubt this proposal should be adopted.

This was extensivly discussed in the past. The german translation list
*unanimously* [1] thinks this is correct. I cited the main discussions in
the request to debian-doc[2,3]. And you stated nearly the same in the end of
august, where Jens Nachtigal pointed out (with several references)
that this discussion was done, the the solution was not disputed [4].
Gerfried Fuchs (Alfie) also stated, that probably every issue has some
opponents, but he has "never ever [..] seen such a vast majority _for_ the
change" [5]. Also both bugs regarding this where opened in the beginning
of the year, and extensivly discussed[6,7].

> Moreover, I doubt why we need to add this issue to the release note.
> Helge, could you explain in first?  It's just _one of technical
> discussions_ in the whole various technical problems.  If you request
> to add this appology, I also would like to request adding other
> various glibc related bugs as "apology" (UTF-8 regexp problems,
> localedata non-update, mips xgot/fakeroot breakage, LSB 2.0
> non-conformance, NPTL pthread_create without setschedparam attr, some
> math precisions, and more).

I cannot say anything about the bugs you mention. If these are indeed
serious *regressions* (e.g., I don't think LSB 2.0 and NPTL are
present in woody), then I assume it part of your responsibility to
judge their relative importance and get the proper notice (in the
changelog, in README.Debian, in NEWS, in the installation manual,
wherever appropriate).

The ordinary german user coming from woody will see this regression
in his daily use on the shell.  The german translation team would
have preferred one of the suggested solutions (frech quotes, return
to the english quotes as of woody), but since you oppose a change,
the users should at least be informed that this unfortunate change
has happened.

> I also think this modification should be changed at upstream level in
> first, because it's glibc localedata problem, not debian local
> problem.  However, _no_ debian guys try to discuss with the glibc
> upstream maintainers.  Note that some primary upstream maintainers
> (Ulrich Drepper, et al) can speak German, but they don't agree this
> proposal currently.

I agree that a change with upstream would be the best solution. But as
I understand it, Debian serves its users, and sometimes this implies
(IMHO) derivation from upstream. I don't know how you handle bugs in
the packages you maintain, but when I receive a bug report which
affects upstreams packages as well, I inform upstream about this. Then
either upstream agrees, and everything is fine, or upstream disagrees,
then I have to decide what is best for my users. This is not something
I need more than 3/4 of a year for to decide. 

> I also concern this issue because this proposal may be rejected in
> future by glibc upstream maintainers.  In that case, debian release
> announcement will keep having such wrong description until sarge+1
> release.  I, as one of upstream glibc bug db maintainer, think this
> patch is doubtly to apply to the glibc localedata.

Why? People coming from Sarge to Etch (=Sarge+1) will already know the
change, and will have acted appropriately. This note is only required
for Sarge. Any change from the current behavior will be an
improvement, hence no note is required.

I don't know how intrusive the change back to the woody behavior (or
to the french quotes) actually is. I also assume, that the glibc has
dealt with controversial issues in the past already. So as you
co-maintain upstream glibc bug db, I assumed that you would
take care of getting this bug resolved (either way) and kept the open
bugs informed about this. For this case, this is especially easy,
since patches where posted (and IMHO technically not challenged, but
maybe I am wrong here), so it is mainly down to a decisions if and how
the change should occur. 

So, if I understand you correctly, the decision is still in progress.
Since Sarge is probably released before the bugs can be resolved, and
if the decision is to keep the current, unesthetical behaviour both
upstream and in Debian (which would be unfortunate), even then this note
is IMHO required. Because Debian serves its users, including the
german ones. And the opinion in favor of a change are so overwhelming,
way more than for many other changes [5].

> So, I object to add this uncertain issue to the release note.  Rob,
> I'm sorry not to reply this request quickly, but I think we should
> remove it from the release announcement.

I ask for the re-inclusion, being backed up by the german translation
team, including several developers. 

I CC:ed Martin Michlmayr as he has not participated in the
discussion so far (hence being neutral) to ask him to help find a
solution about this note in the release notes.

Greetings

         Helge


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-german/2004/07/msg00172.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-doc/2004/09/msg00046.html
[3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/08/msg00496.html
[4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-german/2004/08/msg00235.html
[5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-german/2004/09/msg00016.html
[6] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=228486
[7] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=235759


-- 
Helge Kreutzmann, Dipl.-Phys.               Helge.Kreutzmann@itp.uni-hannover.de
                       gpg signed mail preferred 
    64bit GNU powered                  http://www.itp.uni-hannover.de/~kreutzm
       Help keep free software "libre": http://www.freepatents.org/

Attachment: pgpi6YtelWXxx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: