Bug#1040644: [INTL:ro] Translation-revision of "apt" to Romanian
Hello David,
first of all, I must admit that in the translation process, I peek at
the translations made by the other Latin teams (I studied also French
in the school, and I have lived in Spain for 20 years), so at least
in part , the reported errors/"sins", are due to this.
În miercuri 12 iulie 2023 14:41:44 (+02:00), David Kalnischkies a scris:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jul 08, 2023 at 01:04:28PM +0000, Remus-Gabriel Chelu wrote:
> > Please find attached the Romanian translation of the «apt» file.
>
> Thanks for the update!
>
> I have questions/comments through about the top of the file,
> here the diff with inline comments:
>
> | -# translation of ro.po to Romanian
> | -#
> | +# translation of APT message to Romanian
> | +# Mesajele în limba română pentru pachetul APT.
> | +# Advanced Package Transfer - APT message translation catalog
>
> While they seem borderline pointless as what else should they be,
> at least the third one is extremely misleading… APT doesn't stand
> for "Advanced Package Transfer"… it is somewhat questionable if it
> stands for anything at all even if various sources on the internet
> have their own ideas what it stands for…
>
"Sinning" because of the French/Spanish team, but... a search for
"Advanced Package Transfer" or "APT message translation catalog" in the
"po/" directory will yield more surprises.
>
> | +# Copyright © 2002-2023 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> Are you, like, sure?
>
Same as above, "sinning" because of the Spanish team, but... a search for
"Free Software Foundation, Inc" in the "po/" directory,
will "sing, bingo!" more than once.
> | # Licensing is complex as the msgid come from several files, please see
> | # the individual files for licensing information.
> | -#
> | -# This file originally stated:
>
> Please keep this line as it explains the following line claiming
> that the file is under public domain – which in its entirety is
> questionable as the code the messages are extracted from is not,
> so at the very least the English messages are not beside that
> public domain is a complicated concept around the world.
>
>
Same as in the two cases above.
> | # This file is put in the public domain.
> | #
> | # Sorin Batariuc , 2004, 2005, 2006.
> | # Eddy Petrișor , 2008.
> | +# Remus-Gabriel Chelu , 2023.
> | +#
> | +# Cronologia traducerii fișierului „apt”:
> | +# Traducerea inițială, făcută de SB, pentru versiunea apt ???, 2004.
> | +# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea ???, făcută de SB 2005.
> | +# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea ???, făcută de SB 2006.
> | +# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 1.0.5, făcută de EP noi-2008.
> | +# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 2.7.1, făcută de R-GC, iul-2023.
> | +# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea Y, făcută de X, Z(luna-anul).
>
> I don't speak Romanian so I don't know, but it looks to me like you are
> trying to record here who translated which version and when. You can
> reasonably easy figure this out with the right 'git' commands as that is
> what version control systems are built for, so I am not sure its a good
> idea to keep a manual list (which someone will forget to update at some
> point for sure) for questionable benefit?
>
>
Yes, you are right; it deals with a chronology of the translation of
"apt" messages into Romanian, recording the author, the version of "apt"
and the month-year when the translation was made.
I come from the translation project (GNU) <https://translationproject.org/>,
and here it is quite normal for the software parts of the project to be
updated between 3-4 times a year; the timeline above is meant to show
this continuity over time.
Regarding using the git commands, you have to admit that the "curious"
would have to do a «git clone» first, before they can use the git search/show
commands, which I think is too much of a "disturbance" for the ultimate
goal of satisfying this curiosity.
Also, I don't think many in the yard the "antelope/penguin" know much
about 'git' commands other than "git clone/git pull/git commit/git push".
> Btw, the answer for the first ??? is 0.5.24. See
> https://bugs.debian.org/281458.
Thanks, for the point/tip, I will apply it.
> | "Language-Team: Romanian \n"
>
I don't know/understand what you meant here.
> You seem (very) active on the list and not too many others around from
> a casual look, so that seems fine, but in an ideal world you would post
> a review request there first.
>
>
Yes it is; I stopped publishing translations for review on the team page,
after noticing that "long" translations do not generate interest for review
due to their size.
I usually post on the team page the link to the page where the translation
appears, so that possible interested parties are aware of its existence.
Returning to the "sins" header, here I present a possible "salvation" of it:
-----
# Translation of apt messages to Romanian.
# Mesajele în limba română pentru pachetul „apt”.
# Licensing is complex as the msgid come from several files, please see
# the individual files for licensing information.
# This file originally stated:
# This file is put in the public domain.
#
# Sorin Batariuc <sorin@bonbon.net>, 2004, 2005, 2006.
# Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com>, 2008.
# Remus-Gabriel Chelu <remusgabriel.chelu@disroot.org>, 2023.
#
# Cronologia traducerii fișierului „apt”:
# Traducerea inițială, făcută de SB, pentru versiunea apt 0.5.24, noi-2004.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 0.6.40.1, făcută de SB aug-2005.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 0.6.4.2, făcută de SB ian-2006.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 0.6.43.2, făcută de SB mar-2006.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 0.6.43.3, făcută de SB iun-2006.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 0.6.44.2, făcută de SB sep-2006.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 1.0.5, făcută de EP noi-2008.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea 2.7.1, făcută de R-GC, iul-2023.
# Actualizare a traducerii pentru versiunea Y, făcută de X, Z(luna-anul).
#
msgid ""
msgstr ""
-----
-----------------
Best regards,
Remus-Gabriel
PS: The data regarding the chronology, I collected them from the page:
<https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;include=subject%3A%5BINTL%3Aro%5D;ordering=oldview;package=apt>
PS2: Please help me with a clear example for the new message that appeared
in version apt 2.7.2: "Missing Signed-By in the %s entry for '%s'";
Thanks in advance!
Reply to: