Am Montag, den 16.03.2009, 16:23 +0200 schrieb Eddy Petrișor: > 2009/3/16 Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@gmail.com>: > > 2009/3/1 Yuri Kozlov <yuray@komyakino.ru>: > > In general the DDTP offers to let you translate packages from the > > latest release only but you can update older descriptions also. The > > problem you're most likely to run into is that while the DDTP can have > > a newer translation, the files on the mirrors are not updated. I'm not > > sure what the policy is there (or even if there is one). > > I have also found some really messed up translations (of the few there > are, many are broken and don't use diacritics). I don't see any good > reason why the descriptions' translations shouldn't be updated, even > if we're talking about lenny. I do see the good reason, the same as to why no packages are updated in stable every now and then. That's the core point of having stable releases: To have a stable base. If you randomly update package descriptions through other means than approved channels in stable you open up to fake-description attacks deliberately misleading users. Alright, this is a black-minded thought, but there actually *is* good reason to why stable is tightened down for changes, and accepting random translation updates is working against various QA measures (... well, as far as QA with respect to package descriptions is really there, but that's an old topic). > Does anyone know if this is a technical limitation or is simply an > inertial move which copies the Debian stable policy? > Do we need to get the SRMs' approval to do this? I am quite sure that the ftp masters also have put in technical blockings here like they put in for any other updates to the stable pool. So long, Rhonda
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil