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

Re: Please update debconf PO translation for the package postfix 2.4.0-5

On Wed, May 09, 2007 at 10:22:46AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> (Steve Langasek, in answer to the call for updates for postfix)

> > Looks to me like the Smith Review Project should pay more attention to
> > whether debconf templates should be *removed* from packages instead of being

> You mean like what I reported in #420413? :-)

Heh, yes, exactly like that... :)

> > updated.  All of the above fuzzied and untranslated strings are for
> > templates that are specific to upgrades from sarge; unless there are plans
> > for an upload of these debconf updates to proposed-updates, it would be an
> > unfortunate waste of translator time to update them.

> The main problem is that I generally have no clue about the maintainer's
> plan when it comes at the proposal to remove obsolete templates.

Sure; but something that is possible to determine by looking at the package
is whether these templates will be displayed on a post-etch upgrade, which
the ones in question will not.  So even if the maintainer makes no changes to
the package, it is still better for translators (and proofreaders) to not
spend time on these particular templates -- and when this is something that
you're actively calling for translation updates on, I think the extra work
is warranted to help translators use their time better, no?

> I even have no clue whether (s)he may want to unmark them for translation.

I wonder if we don't need support for a new flag in templates files to mark
strings as low-priority or legacy, as distinct from unmarking them for
translation.  Unmarking for translation will discard any existing
translation work on those strings, which is also not optimal; in the very
rare event that the user does get one of those templates, it's better to use
an existing translation if there is one, it's just not worth having anyone
spend additional time on corrections or new translations.

> I agree that updating this material is suboptimal. This is why I now
> unmark such templates for translation when I find them and I recommend
> dle contributors to skip them when reviewing.

Great :)

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Reply to: