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 ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpZ6Z4Up38jl.pgp
Description: PGP signature