Hi Neil, Le 28/04/2012 09:28, Neil Williams a écrit : >> Updated Portuguese translation for multistrap's PROGRAM messages. > > ... using an outdated PO file from who knows where. I'm afraid you made a little confusion when you send your call for translation on April 21 with the following header: POT-Creation-Date: 2012-04-20 21:34+0100 > The correct PO file, as attached here and previously, contains new > messages, one of which is: > > #: ../multistrap:1492 > #, perl-format > msgid "Apt preferences file to use: '%s'\n" > msgstr "" > > That does NOT appear in the pt.po you submitted for this bug. As you can actually check by yourself in the web archives of the lists, this string was not present either in the file you sent to the i18n and l10n lists: https://lists.debian.org/debian-i18n/2012/04/msg00099.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-french/2012/04/msg00236.html The PO files in your current Subversion repository were updated after your call for translation: http://www.emdebian.org/trac/changeset?new=8334%40current%2Fhost%2Ftrunk%2Fmultistrap%2Ftrunk%2Fpo%2Fpt.po&old=8326%40current%2Fhost%2Ftrunk%2Fmultistrap%2Ftrunk%2Fpo%2Fpt.po [ skip rant ] > Apologies won't change anything here Maybe they won't, but (misplaced) rant may not change anything either. > there needs to be structural > change in how the l10n teams work to guarantee quality submissions into > Debian. That's a very good advice. Depending on the team, we often have a process that tries and guarantees the quality of the *content* translated, but we don't always check if the files work on the technical point of view. Please, don't hesitate to share your ideas to improve the technical part. > The current system just doesn't function effectively. Well, it clearly depends of the projects within Debian, I've had many very good experiences, maybe you have just been unlucky… Discussions between developers and translators usually help a lot to understand each other's expectation. There is not one single workflow, TIMTOWTDI, but since we share a common goal (quality and translated packages), I have no doubt that developers and translators can work things out. > There > *must* be a barrier between the translators and maintainers, This “must” seems misplaced, but I can totally understand if *you* don't want to deal with translations. All translators are not package maintainers, and you can't expect all of them to checkout the last version on your VCS and build the package with their last update before actually sending it to you. If you are not ready to deal with possibly non technical contributors, you may wish to share this part of the work with someone else. Since I already take care of the French translations of a few packages you maintain, I would be happy to handle all translations of those packages on your behalf, and also of your other packages if you wish (including multistrap). > some layer > which can make some assurance of quality by rejecting updates like the > ones I've had to handle. You may also consider using the Translation Project [0] if you want to rely on an non-human interface that will do some technical checks before accepting a new PO file. Please note that having some sort of strong wall between developers and translators is not fully desirable either, and can have other bad side effects. 0: http://translationproject.org/html/welcome.html Regards David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature