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

Bug#545305: marked as done (http://debian.org/intl/l10n/po/ displays src po(t) files, even if not used by the package)

Your message dated Wed, 27 Aug 2014 16:52:54 -0400
with message-id <20140827205254.GA27058@persil.tilapin.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#545305: http://debian.org/intl/l10n/po/ displays src po(t) files, even if not used by the package
has caused the Debian Bug report #545305,
regarding http://debian.org/intl/l10n/po/ displays src po(t) files, even if not used by the package
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
545305: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=545305
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-i18n
Severity: minor

Hi,

On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 11:30:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> A translator recently submitted a bug report against the unixodbc package,
> offering a translation of the .pot file into German.
> 
> Unfortunately, the .pot file in question is for a tool included in the
> upstream tarball that isn't shipped at all in the Debian package - so I've
> rejected the patch and asked him to communicate with upstream directly.

As far as I know, the po materials are extracted from the patched source
directory (and ./gODBCConfig/po/gODBCConfig.sk.po
./gODBCConfig/po/gODBCConfig.pot are present).

> 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 ?

IMO, it would be overkill (one workaround may be removing pot/po files
unused in Debian).

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.

-- 
Simon Paillard

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Sep 02, 2012 at 11:00:10PM -0400, David Prévot wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 12:03:59PM +0200, Nicolas François wrote:

> > An option could be to maintain a black list.
> 
> That would still be useful (e.g. the po4a source is embedded in
> wine-doc

Now that wine-doc has been removed from Debian, not sure this report is
still relevant (and there are already hackish kinds of blacklists in the
current dl10 code), thus closing.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
Reply to: