Re: Sharing thoughts about the ddtp approaches
I believe automation requires a lot of work. We have:
- many languages
- many grammars
- many syntactic rules
- few contributors (none?)
- no top-level rules (e.g. policies to advice maintainers to write descriptions
using some schemas/variables).
Furthermore, avoiding an automatic (and never reviewed!) mistake by DDTP is
better than a bunch of automatic translation handled properly, IMHO.
Maybe we should concentrate on "easily-to-translate" descriptions instead of
automatic translations and addressing little problems
for speeding up translation workflow would be a immediate solution for improving
Anyway I agree with kleptog: unfortunately DDTP doesn't have active contributors
both for little and big actions.
> a) python-* and python3-* have the same descs. We should be able to
> translate both python and python3 translating one of them.
python2 packages are going to be removed from sid/bullseye.
Therefore, there is no need to translate them.
> b) linux-*-dbg: the string is similar, the translation should be
> automated, optionally put in the reviewing string for safety
dforsi from Italian Team wrote a very useful script for translating linux-*
Note that this is on the way to "easily-to-translate" land, so it could not be
what you are looking for.
Kind regards and thanks for throwing a stone in the water.