Re: Would an ABI change of apt for DDTP support still be accepted?
On Mon, October 2, 2006 19:15, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> Best translated are required/important/standard, but those descriptions
>> will be the least relevant to Joe Average, since these packages are
>> already installed for him.
>
> The goal should be making sure that most of the packages people have
> installed are translated, as well as the most popular packages. That
> is a much more acheivable goal, and I think that's attainable in the
> near future...
I'm not sure what your assertion about that goal is based on. Package
translations are used by people trying to make a decision whether or not
to install a given package, not to read up about already installled
packages. Since req/imp/std packages are already installed at the majority
of systems, users will much more likely be confronted with package
descriptions for things they don't have, i.e. optional, than the things
they already have installed.
> I hope you're not suggesting we need to get all languages covering all
> of optional before you think it is worthwhile?
Indeed, I can be clear about this: you need to have some significant
proportion of languages have a significant proportion of translations.
Significant means not necessarily 100% but also not < 5%.
On Mon, October 2, 2006 20:48, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> This is very much related to the fact that the language teams see no gain
> for translating the DDTP right now since end-users would not be able to
> see them, as there is no support in apt or its frontends.
Ah, a circle which needs to be broken. It can however be broken by any of
the two parts in this situation; and I believe that being very close to
the release, breaking the circle at the apt side is not highly desirable.
It's easy to argue the other way around: translators should show that
there's an actual use for the function before it gets added, especially in
this late stage of the game.
I'm not at all proposed at implementing the feature. I just think that the
request for inclusion was very late and thus high-risk, if you want to
justify that, you need to bring more than future expected usefulness. The
latter is fine in itself, but suitable for the beginning of a release
cycle.
Thijs
Reply to: