Re: RFC: i18n proposal

[Pedro Morais <pmmm rnl ist utl pt>]

> What needs "update"? New package additions not extracted into C.po all
> ready to go for you? Or do you mean that the just translated msgid's
> have changed in "fuzzy" ways.
>
> Yes, package additions *require* addition to C.po in order for the
> translation process to work.

New package additions.
Just take a look at the CVS log for (for example) specspo/pt.po.
Somehow I can't believe that since 2003/02/24 the only thing
that changed in the distro was the spamassassin summary.
(2003/07/03).
Was happens is that before the release there's a huge specspo
update with lots and lots of packages.
It'd be better if the file was updated more often.

> "Fuzzy" is even more complicated, ultimately depends on which of the
> following entities should "own" the text that appears in msgid's:
> 	a) upstream maintainers
> 	b) distro packagers/developers
> 	c) editors
> 	d) translators

Uhm... Not the translators, I think. We own the text in the msgstr in
our <locale>.po file.

> Any of a) through d) is a possible/reasonable candidate for "ownership".
>
> Choose one, and a reasonable process flow that efficiently gets the
> translations performed and distributed is quite easy.

I would choose b) or c), depending on who wrote the original spec
file description. 
I guess that in rhl-project a) can now be equal to b).

> Lest there be any mistake: Red Hat has managed to do a quite reasonable
> job of getting translations for packages. Sure, not every locale is there,
> sure there's lots of glitches, but overall, I believe the process is
> pretty sound.

Yes it is.
It's just that if the specspo file got some attention earlier it would be
much easier for the (voluntary) translators.

	Pedro Morais