Re: Specfile description and summary translations
Otto Urpelainen wrote: > I am also afraid that for rpms, current tooling makes success > impossible: nothing tracks when the main Summary is changed and flags > translations as outdated, and any volunteer translator would have to > endure a dist-git pull request workflow to contribute fixes. Yes, translators would need some translation tool that flags outdated translations and doesn't require pull requests to each and every package. For package maintainers who know some non-English language, it's much more convenient to write a translation in the spec file than to first update the package and then switch to some other tool to update the translation. The current RPM tooling works well for them. Years ago there were translations of RPM descriptions and summaries that originated from somewhere other than spec files. I don't know what tools were used to produce those, but they seemed to coexist peacefully with translations from spec files. They don't seem to exist anymore. The few translations I can find now all come from spec files. The disappearance of those external translations indicates that the Fedora Project no longer cares about translations of RPM descriptions and summaries, which is sad, but in that case there certainly shouldn't be a "SHOULD" in the Review Guidelines. Björn Persson pgpCtFKpUoKUK.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Specfile description and summary translations
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek kirjoitti 18.8.2021 klo 12.06: On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:57:39AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote: I have problems interpreting the following check from fedora-review: [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. My understanding is that this is about translations of %description and Summary: E.g. autofs has this: Summary(de): autofs daemon ... %description -l de autofs ist ein Dämon, der Dateisysteme automatisch montiert, wenn sie benutzt werden, und sie später bei Nichtbenutzung wieder demontiert. Dies kann Netz-Dateisysteme, CD-ROMs, Disketten und ähnliches einschließen. Yes, I also interpreted the check being about those. It was just unclear if "translation available" should be interpreted as having translated specfile summaries and/or descriptions specifically, or just some translated strings that would fit in there. In one of the first package reviews I made, I recall suggesting copying such translations from the desktop file which had many suitable translations. In the end, this suggestion was not followed, because a more experienced reviewer said that having translations in desktop file is not what is meant by 'translations are available' here — only an upstream specfile with translations would count. I would like to update fedora-review as well as Review and Packaging Guidelines to explain what is expected for these translations. For that, I would need to understand the purpose of this check better. Perhaps somebody here has some insight? I'd propose dropping the check. I think it's fine to let people do those translations, it is a LOT of work to do them for multiple languages and to keep them updated as the original version changes. And since this is only available only for a tiny subset of packages, it's close to useless. (You'd need to know English anyway to read most descriptions…). If we wanted to invest in translations, (and this is a big if), I'd try to do this as the level of appdata, so at least the graphical installer can show translations. This would also let upstreams get involved in the translations, instead of doing it at the level of the distro. I assume people who don't speak English are more likely to use the graphical installer too, since so many commands have English options and output in English. Unless further points are made for retaining this check (and consequently making the Packaging Guidelines stricter, so the check can refer to it), I will submit PRs to remove it from fedora-review and the Review Guidelines. In that case, it does not pay to discuss the correct interpretation of the details. I have my system set to Finnish language and I really appreciate all the parts where that works. I do not appreciate the "Fin-glish" parts where I get mostly English with occasional translations here and there. So it should be a concentrated investment to get high translation count and quality. I am also afraid that for rpms, current tooling makes success impossible: nothing tracks when the main Summary is changed and flags translations as outdated, and any volunteer translator would have to endure a dist-git pull request workflow to contribute fixes. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Specfile description and summary translations
On Wed, Aug 18, 2021 at 08:57:39AM +0300, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
> I have problems interpreting the following check from fedora-review:
>
> > [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
> contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if
> available.
My understanding is that this is about translations of %description
and Summary:
E.g. autofs has this:
Summary(de): autofs daemon
Summary(fr): démon autofs
Summary(tr): autofs sunucu süreci
...
%description
autofs is a daemon which automatically mounts filesystems when you use
them, and unmounts them later when you are not using them. This can
include network filesystems, CD-ROMs, floppies, and so forth.
%description -l de
autofs ist ein Dämon, der Dateisysteme automatisch montiert, wenn sie
benutzt werden, und sie später bei Nichtbenutzung wieder demontiert.
Dies kann Netz-Dateisysteme, CD-ROMs, Disketten und ähnliches einschließen.
%description -l fr
autofs est un démon qui monte automatiquement les systèmes de fichiers
lorsqu'on les utilise et les démonte lorsqu'on ne les utilise plus. Cela
inclus les systèmes de fichiers réseau, les CD-ROMs, les disquettes, etc.
...
This can be consumed with:
$ dnf download autofs
$ LANG=de rpm -qpi autofs-5.1.7-17.fc34.x86_64.rpm
Name: autofs
...
Description :
autofs ist ein Dämon, der Dateisysteme automatisch montiert, wenn sie
benutzt werden, und sie später bei Nichtbenutzung wieder demontiert.
Dies kann Netz-Dateisysteme, CD-ROMs, Disketten und ähnliches einschließen.
> In one of the first package reviews I made, I recall suggesting
> copying such translations from the desktop file which had many
> suitable translations. In the end, this suggestion was not followed,
> because a more experienced reviewer said that having translations in
> desktop file is not what is meant by 'translations are available'
> here — only an upstream specfile with translations would count.
>
> I would like to update fedora-review as well as Review and Packaging
> Guidelines to explain what is expected for these translations. For
> that, I would need to understand the purpose of this check better.
> Perhaps somebody here has some insight?
I'd propose dropping the check. I think it's fine to let people do
those translations, it is a LOT of work to do them for multiple languages
and to keep them updated as the original version changes.
And since this is only available only for a tiny subset of packages,
it's close to useless. (You'd need to know English anyway to read
most descriptions…).
If we wanted to invest in translations, (and this is a big if), I'd
try to do this as the level of appdata, so at least the graphical
installer can show translations. This would also let upstreams get
involved in the translations, instead of doing it at the level of the
distro. I assume people who don't speak English are more likely to use
the graphical installer too, since so many commands have English
options and output in English.
> I addition to the fedora-review check given above, I can find the
> following references:
>
> Review Guidelines [1] have this entry, which is quite clearly the
> origin of the fedora-review check.
>
> > SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
> file should contain translations for supported Non-English
> languages, if available.
>
> That entry refers to Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description
> [2]. It has milder wording, saying 'can' instead of 'should':
>
> > Packages can contain additional translated summary/description for
> supported Non-English languages, if available.
Yeah, I think this "can" is reasonable.
> Assuming that the Packaging Guidelines are correct and that 'can'
> there means 'you can do it either way, Fedora as a distribution does
> not have any preference', I would say the above listed entries
> should simply be removed from both Review Guidelines and
> fedora-review. If Fedora has no preference either way, why should
> reviewers consider this at all?
>
> There are some but not very many specfiles that actually have translations:
>
> $ grep -c 'Summary(' * | grep -v .spec:0 | wc -l
> 137
Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Specfile description and summary translations
I have problems interpreting the following check from fedora-review:
> [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file
contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
In one of the first package reviews I made, I recall suggesting copying
such translations from the desktop file which had many suitable
translations. In the end, this suggestion was not followed, because a
more experienced reviewer said that having translations in desktop file
is not what is meant by 'translations are available' here — only an
upstream specfile with translations would count.
I would like to update fedora-review as well as Review and Packaging
Guidelines to explain what is expected for these translations. For that,
I would need to understand the purpose of this check better. Perhaps
somebody here has some insight?
I addition to the fedora-review check given above, I can find the
following references:
Review Guidelines [1] have this entry, which is quite clearly the origin
of the fedora-review check.
> SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
available.
That entry refers to Packaging Guidelines: Summary and description [2].
It has milder wording, saying 'can' instead of 'should':
> Packages can contain additional translated summary/description for
supported Non-English languages, if available.
Assuming that the Packaging Guidelines are correct and that 'can' there
means 'you can do it either way, Fedora as a distribution does not have
any preference', I would say the above listed entries should simply be
removed from both Review Guidelines and fedora-review. If Fedora has no
preference either way, why should reviewers consider this at all?
There are some but not very many specfiles that actually have translations:
$ grep -c 'Summary(' * | grep -v .spec:0 | wc -l
137
Any thoughts?
[1]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/
[2]:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_summary_and_description
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
