Hi, On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 12:03:59PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote: > 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). That has been fixed recently: for every language tracked by the l10n.d.o bot, those pages show first the list of PO files with the Language-Team: set to the list (and includes the status of the bot if available). > 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 ? > > An option could be to maintain a black list. That would still be useful (e.g. the po4a source is embedded in wine-doc, and this documentation translation used to be handled by Debian translation teams, so it wrongly shows up in some intl/l10n/po4a/ pages… The blacklist should be selective (by file), not to dismiss all a package for one spurious file. Cheers David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature