Re: Asking for a new pseudo package in the BTS: l10n-french
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:10:24PM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote:
> To sum up my point, the best solution would be that translators become the
> same status inside Debian than maintainers.
If we have enough qualified ones, .. yes always but I doubt it.
> One way to achieve that is that binary packages would contain not only
> data.tar.gz, but also data-XX.tar.gz (and maybe doc-XX.tar.gz, but that's
> another point), one for each language. Then, building a binary package would
> build all parts. So, when the maintainer release a version, he release the
> whole stuff. Then, translator would be provided a way to overide the data-XX
> part with updated translation. That's a bit what's proposed in
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2001/debian-devel-200108/msg02329.html
I think what you proposed can be done through recommends and separate
binary packages. I mean that we can make new packages which only has
translated document or catalog for message to localize the
internationalized package if translated document maintainer is DD. I
understand some advantage for this.
But this will strain current package archive with huge number of
packages. My P-233MHz is sluggish when checking dependencies already
and my DX4-50 MHz requires me to go to bed before getting dependency
check finishes.
I think we need some fundamental packaging management system change
before we do things like this. I mean who want to set manually all
translated document is selected or deselected.
> I agree that there is still a lot of design issues with that approach (what
> will be the package version when a translation is updated?), but if we could
> get this working, it would be the best.
>
>
> As long as this solution isn't effective (ie a loooong time), we have to
> search for tricks.
>
> One possible trick is to create a pseudo-package for each translation team
> (this pseudo-package could be named qa-<language), and allow bug repport
> against it to:
> 1) allow bug repport in the local language, and not english
> 2) allow translators to see immediatly bugs of their work, without asking
> them to monitor all the bugs of all the packages they translate.
This is quite doable provided followings are met.
1) Package maintainer is first line of contact.
2) README.Debian in the package explains pseudo-package qa-<language>
3) Source for localized translation is in CVS.debian.org .
4) Packager or upstream if it wishes always get latest translation from
pseudo-package qa-<language> CVS.
5) If Package maintainer get bug report, it reassign bug with some
special tag (BTS should deal it like upstream tag, I guess.)
> Another trick is a 'translation' tag for the BTS (see #114221). Also
> useful (with PTS, translators could subscribe to all translation bugs of
> packages they translate), but not as much as the first trick, since:
> - I'm not sure of the maintainers' reaction when they see a bug in french
> with the "translation" tag.
French is not big issue but Japanese UTF-8 or EUCJP mail will likely get
dropped by SPAM filter :-(
> - translator will get all translation bugs, not only the ones for their
> language. Could be overcome by the creation of many 'translation-XX'
> tags, but is this what we want?
>
>
> Proposed solutions which does not work well IMHO:
> - keep as we are: bugs are reported against the package containing it:
> every translation team have to have the needed manpower to monitor *all*
> bugs submitted against *all* Debian package.
> - keep as we are, but use the 'upstream' tag for translations issues.
> That means that translators are denied the use of the BTS and have to
> handle bugs without the corresponding tools.
So pseudo package will solve it :-)
> - don't use the BTS, but the bug tracking system from the DDTP:
> works only for pkg descriptions, debconf templates (?), and so, but not
> for man pages, program messages, and so on.
I am not sure but Japanese man page is a separate package. So it is not
a issue.
> - http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-feedback.en.html
> This is specifically designed for documentation, but does not take
> several translation issues into account.
Well, I think ddp-policy will be narrowing scope to get approval. But
we should keep discussing best infrastructure for feed back for package
specific documentation.
> Here we are. Now, there is two solutions. Either each team continue to
> search its own trick on its side, and we continue to hack like we do now, or
> we do speak between translation coordinators to see which solution could be
> developped, and we try to organize ourselves as a debian-l10n team, using
> the same well designed methods for the well known issues.
I think coordinated effort with DDP and DDTP will be nice.
Osamu
--
~\^o^/~~~ ~\^.^/~~~ ~\^*^/~~~ ~\^_^/~~~ ~\^+^/~~~ ~\^:^/~~~ ~\^v^/~~~ +++++
Osamu Aoki <osamu@debian.org> Cupertino CA USA, GPG-key: A8061F32
.''`. Debian Reference: post-installation user's guide for non-developers
: :' : http://qref.sf.net and http://people.debian.org/~osamu
`. `' "Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software" --- Social Contract
Reply to: