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

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:
> So, what do you guys think ?
> 
> To sum up my point, the best solution would be that translators become the
> same status inside Debian than maintainers. 

ack

> 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 don't like this (if I understand it in the right way)

I like more real packages with only translations in it. Like
  gmc (only code and english text)
  gmc-i10n-es (all translations for the bin-package gmc (po, man-pages,
               README-files, ...)
  gmc-i10n-de
  gmc-i10n-fr
  gmc-i10n-..

The bin package 'gmc' have a 'Suggests: gmc-i10n-*' like dependence and
the user can use apt pining to avoid some languages.

The i10n packages have real package maintainers, we have a real
BTS-package. Also we can make new i10n packages, without any delay from
the bin package maintainer. 

Some translator can build a own aptable http server with his newest
translations and maybe some DDTP-like system can build daily new i10n
packages, if it has new translations...

> As long as this solution isn't effective (ie a loooong time), we have to
> search for tricks. 

for this we must wait a looooooooooooonger time... :-)

> Proposed solutions which does not work well IMHO:
>   - keep as we are: bugs are repported 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 coresponding tools.
>   - 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.

one note: 
   The bug tracking system from the DDTP work for debconf templates, but
   the package maintainers don't know all this translations and they
   don't use this translations. 

   In some weeks I will start a next fight, and I will write bug
   reports... (i am sorry to say, that dpkg don't have any debconf
   template)


Gruss
Grisu
-- 
Michael Bramer  -  a Debian Linux Developer      http://www.debsupport.de
PGP: finger grisu@db.debian.org  -- Linux Sysadmin   -- Use Debian Linux
»Trau nur nicht der Diskretion der Behörden, mein Junge.  Je mehr es davon
 gibt, desto mehr Futter brauchen sie.« -- Heinrich Böll, »Billard um halbzehn«

Attachment: pgpriSuV7sikY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: