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

Re: State of pootle.debian.net, alternatives for the Romanian team

On Tue,18.May.10, 07:15:08, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > I would be interested in the state of pootle.debian.net. Is it usable?  
> Only for debian-installer level 1 files. This is the only project
> where a two-way process is possible and where it is possible to commit
> from Pootle and have you work being used without any other action.
> > As far as I can tell the stats for Romanian are wrong.
> For D-I, they shouldn't.
Take for example sublevel 2:

- in Pootle:	5634t116f496u
- in SVN:	492t13f22u

I must be missing something!
> Other projects are more prospective things I try to keep running. The
> "debconf" or "po-debconf" projects is supposedly gathing all material
> for debconf templates l10n, assemble them in an SVN hosted on alioth
> and have Pootle hooked on this. This part works (it's using sync
> scripts I wrote and that are running daily on churro). However, there
> is no way to push the data back to packages. The is inherent to the
> distributed nature of packaging.

For the moment we have to push the data manually from Narro anyway.

> churro already has running cronjobs to gather this material (cf supra)
> so there's no need to duplicated work here. The published stats for
> po-debconf are built from that material. IIRC, from
> http://i18n.debian.net you should find your way to detailed
> explanations about this.
> As said above, I have a running cronjobs that push that material
> back to the debian-l10n SVN repository on alioth. This is working
> fairly well, but I monitor this quite loosely and this is anyway a
> kind of proof of concept. Of course, I'd very much welcome seeing more
> people jumping in this and proposiig evolutions to that framework.

To conclude, is the location suggested by Martin Bagge useable, at least 
for the moment?

Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: