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

Re: [RFR] Description and templates for package dotLRN



Quoting Hector Romojaro (hromojaro@dia.uned.es):

> Ok, looks good, I attach the fixed templates file to this email.

Good. I don't think there will be more changes to the templates now.

And now, for the sugar on top of the cake, I grabbed all translations (PO
files) from dbconfig-common, resynced them with these templates (by
putting all PO files in debian/po after putting the new templates file
in debian/ and then running "debconf-updatepo"), dropped the unused
strings (msgattrib --no-obsolete) and put this into a big tarball
that's attached to this mail.

So, you "won" 20 partial translations for your package..:-)

WHat you can do now is putting all PO files in debian/po, then run
"podebconf-report-po --call --languageteam". This will mail all
translators from these 20 files -originally translators of
dbconfig-common- and ask them to update their translations, with their
language team CC'ed. This will also send a call for translations in
debian-i18n with the templates.pot file attached so that translators
of other languages have an opportunity to send a translation too.

Then wait for about 10 days, leaving time for us to work....and then
you can upload.

You'll tell me: "what about translations that have been sent already"
(some have been as it seems and they of course use the old strings).

I think you can just drop them..:-)

For openacs that shares templates with dotlrn (the only change being
s/dotlrn/openacs and s/dotLRN/OpenACS) you can reuse these PO files
and just run "debconf-updatepo after putting the right
debian/templates file derived from the one we reviewed for dotlrn.

Then, of course, send a call for translation updates too. Don't try to
s/dotlrn/openacs in PO files: there may be subtle cases in some
languages where it could not be enough (French at the minimum...).


Attachment: dotlrn-l10n.tar.gz
Description: Binary data

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: