On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 04:03:39PM +0100, Martin Quinson wrote: > [debian-i18n CCed for obvious reason, debian-policy CCed because I'm not > sure anymore who decides which pseudo-package exists] > > Hello, > > As coordinator of the french translation team, we would like to ask for the > creation of a new pseudo package in the BTS. It would be called l10n-french, > and would be made to repport problems in french translations. I'm not convinced this is a good idea for several reasons. The main one being that the BTS already holds a place for translation bugs, but that really depends on what the translation is _about_: 1.- is it a debconf template? then the package that included it should be bugged. 2.- is it a document that it's included in a package? then the package should be bugged (sample: doc-debian-fr) 3.- is the document not available in the package? Then file a bug against debian-doc 4.- is it a manpage? Is it packaged with the program: bug the program, is it not? bug manpages-XX (XX=es|fr|pt...) Yes, this might seem overly complicated. It would probably be useful to have a 'debian-i18n' pseudo-package so that translation coordinators (subscribed through the PTS) could reassign bugs to the appropiate place (following the above rule). This should be first created before going on to create 'debian-i18n-french' or similar ones. IMHO. I would like you, first, to read the proposal on how to bug documentation packages (and translations) we've been working on at debian-doc. Please read http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/ddp-policy/ch-feedback.en.html This is not yet policy (it's a draft). However, I _do_ see the need for a new BTS tag: 'translation'. This could probably make package maintainer's life easier as well as PTS subscribers to packages which only want to see translation bugs. Javi PS: You can submit your proposals to the DDP-policy as patches, thank you.
Attachment:
pgpH_SWknhTWF.pgp
Description: PGP signature