Re: ddp: manpages status
El Sa, 26-02-2005 a las 09:55 +0100, Denis Barbier escribió:
> This is great. If you do not know how to add it to Alioth, I can put it
> under http://people.debian.org/~barbier/
It's ok, but I'd prefer if you could point me to some documentation
explaining how to add it to alioth.
> > Second, as you could see there is no link with the translator's email,
> > this is because we don't have this stored, one maintainer complained to
> > me that the only way to know that is reading the translation, and trying
> > to guess. At least we should add this the INFOS.
>
> Do you mean that the Translator field should be mandatory, with a valid
> email address?
At least, we need an easy way to get in touch with the translator,
without reading the manpage, usually in a language the maintainer
doesn't understand, a standard header in the source code as proposed,
for example. As a complement a mandatory field in the INFOS file would
allow automatic processing for a webpage like the proposed one in an
easy way.
> > Version: X.Y
> > Encoding: foo
> > Original: origina.file
> > Original-Package-Version: bar 1.5 + cvs xx.yy.zz
> > CVS-Repository: ++++
> > Original-CVS-Revision: X.YY
> > Last-Translator: name <email>
> > Previous-Translators: name1 <email1>; name2 <email2> ...
> > Reviewers: the same
> >
> > At this time there is little script in the ddp named check_packaged.pl,
> > it diffs the files in the package and in the cvs, I did that some time
> > ago, but it seems to me a temporary solution.
>
> Huh? Why is manual edition of a file better than an automatic check?
Sorry, I explained it wrong, the automatic check is ok. Sometimes it
isn't worth bother the maintainer with some changes in the manpage
source code, for example, the addition of a new reviewer, but only
diffing the manpages report an outdated manpage. I propose to include in
the manpage's header
Version: X.Y
and update .Y to reflect this minor changes that doesn't affect the
final document and check that with the script.
Reply to: