On Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:59:30 -0600 Raphael Geissert <atomo64+debian@gmail.com> wrote: > One concern I have with your proposal/personal requirement is that: > > a) it depends on the time and availability of translators, and > b) [ITP-only] it means that if a package is not in shape, doesn't fit in Debian, > or there's any reason not to include it in the archive it would mean wasted > time and work (depends on the POV of course[1]) for the translators, and am > sure the majority won't be very happen. > > For a) not much can be done about, but for b) what I suggest is sending the > first RFC as usual, and once the package gets an ok in terms of "yes, looks > good and I'm willing to help it get in the archive", the package maintainer > should then send the request for translations. > > Other than that, +1 for pushing this idea. OK, that's fair. I'll update my page with that bit too. Thanks. The call for translations would then need to be done during the review process, once the package has found a sponsor. One point from an i18n perspective - it is strongly recommended that all debconf templates are sent for review before translation anyway, for English grammar, context and general usefulness. The sponsor needs to do some of that but debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org is a useful place to start with any debconf templates. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpI1EIWGPwdd.pgp
Description: PGP signature