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

Re: debconf PO translations for the package emdebian-tools

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:04:12 +0100
Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:

> (CC'ed as you may not be subscribed to -i18n)

Thanks, I'm not subscribed.

> > I would like to know if some of you would be interested in
> > translating the debconf templates for the next version
> > emdebian-tools, v0.0.4.
> Thanks for taking care to give us an opportunity to send new
> translations for your package. It's very much appreciated.

No problem, although your reply is evidence that I should have put more
content into that email. I'm not usually guilty of being insufficiently
verbose. Sorry.

I did mention that this was for the next version, not the version
currently in NEW.

> I use this opportunity to suggest some minor improvements to such
> calls for translations:
> - why not post a call for new translations *before* uploading the
> package to NEW?

The simplest reason is that v0.0.3 in NEW does not use debconf and has
no translation support!


The scripts within v0.0.3 output the barest minimum of output and
unless the user specifies --verbose --verbose, most messages come
directly from other programs called by the scripts. The tools are
designed to be all but silent and actively suppress non-essential
output from other programs where possible. This is because the package
tries to cross-build packages and building any package produces quite
enough output, cross-building it adds some more and there is no need to
add yet more.

Developments within emdebian-tools during the wait has led to a need
to use debconf for v0.0.4 which is currently taking shape in SVN.

>That would allow you to have a solid bunch of
> translations since the beginning...and, moreover, that would avoid
> breaking the magic 100% for some of us..:-)

I know what you mean, but there is no danger of that in this case. I'm
not expecting the templates file to change between now and upload of
v.0.0.4 but I will repeat the call if any changes become necessary.

> - giving a dealine is much appreciated by translators. It allows us to
> organize our work and deal with priorities. Of course, here, you
> constrained by the unknown time needed to process your package in NEW
> but, anyway, giving something reasonable like 7-10 days would be good.

The constraint is nothing to do with v0.0.3 in NEW, but on development
of v0.0.4 in SVN. I can't give you a deadline there, although I can say
that v0.0.4 is not likely to be ready within 7-10 days.

> Can you give us at least a rough ideas of such deadline?

It's very rough, but 10-14 days would provide enough time to complete
testing and make a few more bug fixes before uploading v0.0.4 a few
days after that - if v0.0.3 is not out of NEW by then, 0.0.4 will just
have to replace it in the queue.


Neil Williams

Attachment: pgpZ6Z4Up38jl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: