"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <cobaco@skolelinux.no> (15/05/2006): > On Monday 15 May 2006 16:01, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > Do you mean something like this? > > > $ dl10ndebconf > > _______________________ > > _____________________________|_____po-debconf______| > > [...] > > |TOTAL (assume BTS = 1; fr) |99.6%| 8614/17/11 | > > |____________________________|_____|_______________| > > > > If yes, see the debian-l10n project on alioth. > > yep, that's exactly what I meant, but it needs to be on the debian.org/intl > pages: > > We currently have sections there > 1) Packages with po-debconf support and for which translation is underway > 2) Packages with po-debconf support and for which translation is done > 3) Packages with po-debconf support and for which translation is to do > > Should become (IMHO): > 1) Packages with po-debconf support for which the translation needs an > update: everything with partial translation that isn't being worked on. > Mark with RFU (request for update) date (automaticaly when one is send > out by podebonf-report-po?). > 2) Packages with po-debconf support and for which translation is underway: > everything that's in RFR or LCFC state > 3) Packages with po-debconf support and for which translation is done: > done in package and done in BTS (with indication of which is which) > 4) Packages with po-debconf support and for which translation is to do There has been such a page (at least for French) a long time ago, but it no longer exists: http://web.archive.org/web/20041124094735/http://graal.ens-lyon.fr/~mquinson/debian/po-debconf.fr.html To add this page to the website should not be a coding problem, IMO. We just need to unify the database formats used between different language teams (and that is a problem :-)) > > > [1] http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po-debconf/nl or > > > http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po/nl mostly, though the latter has > > > mostly non-debian-specific stuff > > > > You have an "Upstream:" field in the database used to generate these > > pages, based on the presence of a diff in the source package and the > > presence of a dash in the version. This can be easily used by dl10n-txt > > (see the --debian (no diff, no dash) or the --diff-only (no diff) > > options). > > However, with these criteria, wxwidgets is a debian-specific package > > while aptitude isn't, but these are exceptions. > > right I see 3 classes of apps here: > 1) debian stuff (apt, dpkg, ... i.e. Debian is upstream), is probably in > debian-native packages (not sure if this is generally true) > -> primary target for translation by Debian l10n teams > 2) no upstream translation team > -> secondary target for translation by Debian l10n teams, leave alone > untill debian-specific stuff is done. > 3) upstream has a translation team (KDE, Gnome, ...) > -> shouldn't be touched directly by Debian, integrate any work with > upstream translation team I agree, this is what we (the French team) are doing. > So: 1 = no diff, no dash > 2 ~= no diff (upstream team might not have gotten to specific component > yet so only aproximate) Hmm no, this one is a mistake (there is a lintian warning for this kind of upload, the only good reason I see to have no diff but a dash are brutal repackaging). One of the solution would be to have a manually generated database that contains all the may-be-translated-when-you-have-time packages. > 3 ~= diff Cheers, -- Thomas Huriaux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature