(I haven't looked #512210 yet) Quoting Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org): > > In the original report, I only tested against the .deb. The > > no-complete-debconf-translation check is not high enough severity to > > show up without -I when checking the source package. > > Yes, we can change the severity, although I'd like to run that past > debian-i18n first. I'm not entirely enthusiast to increase the severity. Having incomplete PO files is not an error per se. And the maintainer might very well have sent a call for translaiton updates but not received any input from some translators. That happens very often. So, I would not like some maintainers to consider that the translation file is bogus and not include it, while it is just safe to keep it as is. > > > If the binary check is added, the certainty can be raised and also the > > severity. With that change, the description could be made more strict: > > I don't see why a binary check would change the certainty. Maybe I'm > missing something? It's certainty: possible right now because there may > be cases where translators were warned but didn't have a chance to do any > translations (for an obscure package, for instance). I think that will > always be the case. *Yes*. Really, I see no real good way to actually check if translators were warned (as this is done by mail). So, the current warning is the only thing that should be done, imho... > debian-mentors discussion also raises the valid point that a brand new > package possibly shouldn't go to translators before the first upload. I'd > like to get a debian-i18n opinion on that as well. Should we skip the > Lintian tag for no complete translation if this is the first packaging? > (We can detect this by noting that we only have one changelog entry.) On first packaging, what we would see is first a review of English messages in debian-l10n-english (yet another thing you can't really detect) before the call for translations is issued to -i18n. Of course, a first package with no translation at all is really something we don't like as this makes obvious that no call for translations was made and very very likely that no review happened (because such reviews always include a recommendation to do a call for translations....). > > > I'd like to see severity important but normal would be OK for starters. > > Remember, the rule of thumb here is that severity should match the > severity that you'd pick for the bug that you filed about the problem, > were you to file a bug. Important is a rather large leap over the current > severities used for translations. Agreed. Even though we consider l10n to be important, I think that overflating severities for it would very likely make maintainers angry for no real benefit.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature