Bug#545305: http://debian.org/intl/l10n/po/ displays src po(t) files, even if not used by the package
Hello,
My proposal would be to drop the lists http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po/
and add a list with the PO files of native packages (+ packages whose L10N
is know to be managed by Debian).
Alternatively, we could add a preeminent warning on the top of
http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po/ that these translations should be
coordinated with the corresponding upstreams (IMHO, it is also the case
for PO files which are used in Debian).
On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 01:10:15PM +0200, Simon Paillard wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:30:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > The trouble is, the suggestion to translate this package came from here:
> > http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po/de#i18n
> >
> > and the .pot file is published here:
> > http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/po/pot
> >
> > Could these pages be fixed to not suggest translating .pot files when the
> > corresponding .po files are demonstrably not being used in the binary
> > packages?
>
> How to demonstrate it easily ?
> Parsing debian/rules and Makefiles and determine if the pot and po files
> are build or not ?
Checking if there are MO files distributed in the binary packages is easy.
But this will miss the PO files used for other purpose (mainly for PO
based documentation translation)
> IMO, it would be overkill (one workaround may be removing pot/po files
> unused in Debian).
I agree, and I have no idea of the false PO files that we are advertising.
An option could be to maintain a black list.
> At last, as far for the french team, these l10n webpages tell people to
> coordinate with the team, so that the coordinator is able to manually
> check whether the software is to be translated or not.
And we try not to focus on upstream translations, so this PO file would
not show up.
Best Regards,
--
Nekral
Reply to: