On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 10:35:06AM +0200, Christian Kurz wrote: > So you want to compare packages from an upstream with packages created > by either someone or a team for a distribution?
No, I'm saying that if you're dealing with a package that will be distributed by means over which you have no control, then you are forced to include the translation in the package. If you have control over the distribution methods, then you can integrate the translation system into the distribution system however is most convenient, which almost certainly doesn't mean forcing it into the package in every case. > > If on the other hand you are one of those distributions, distributing > > all sorts of packages, some of which have upstream translations, some of > > which don't, some of whose maintainers are able and willing to spend time > > on translations, some of whose maintainers aren't, then it doesn't make > > sense to set yourselves up in such a way (translations always living in > > packages) that translations will only be available when the maintainer > > does work on them. > > Which creates the situation, that packages in debian will on the one > hand be different then the one you can get from the upstream and on the > other hand it's a violation of our social-contract: No, it doesn't. > So if we correct wrong translation or create a new translation, then we > shall send it to the upstream and inform them. With your suggestion > above, this will only happen, if either the translator is doing this > task also or if the maintainer is taking care of the translation. In all > other cases, where the maintainer is not taking care of the translation, > we'll have a nice violation of that statement. And since the maintainer > is the contact to the upstream and responsible for the debian package, > he shall be involved in the translation. Great. So rather than have a system that enables us to get a working translation, the option for the maintainer to be notified/involved, and otherwise the ability for the translators to send translations upstream, you'd rather keep banging your head against the brick wall that is maintainers just not able/willing/with enough time to deal with, check, integrate translations, and keep *us*, never mind upstream, from getting good translations. Feel free to keep banging your head against any walls you like, but don't complain when you find you're not getting through. > Splitting translation out of upstream packages is in my opinion a bad > thing and should never be done. I was careful to avoid suggesting that such a thing should be done. Although providing a better/alternative translation as an override should be simple. And if a maintainer decides that the upstream translations are worse than useless, then yes, they should be free to remove them, and the translation project should be able to provide alternatives without necessarily causing extra work for the maintainer. > > Fine, no-one is saying that you shouldn't be able to arrange to be notified > > when a particular package has a translation made available. > > And how do you propose to integration this notifications? According to > your statement, everyone can update the translation without having to > hassle with me and that's the point which makes me sad. If a translation is added to the official Debian archive, then it would be simple to arrange to notify any maintainer who wanted to know. If some third party at some random site provides a translation archive, then it's up to them whether they tell you or not. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't provide a mechanism for them to do so. It's free software after all. That means that if someone wants to do a translation, or if they want to run the code through an obfuscator, they don't *have* to tell you. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
