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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
