Angolan and Cape Verdean users

Fri Feb 17 17:45:43 UTC 2006

Very interesting points brought up by all...  Matt, maybe now you
understand a bit more about the causes of having separate locales for
one root-language.  I cannot speak for all Brazilians here, but I can
honestly say that I could care less, initially, if someone completed
the translation of,say, one of the still pending oo2 files using
portuguese from Macau!  The whole point would be to create something
that would have the potential of helping everyone to a certain degree.
 I can live with ficheiro e gerenciador...  For I'm looking at the big
picture: Every portuguese speaker would be able to at least have
something very close to their native tongue!  Further disassociation
could be done after the fact...

With that said, it is obvious that there's not a common solution for
so far most speakers don't think this is an issue (having separate
groups)...  If this is indeed the direction we're going, we should
then continue segragating (I apologize for this word, but can't think
of a better one at the moment) languages by dialects.

hummmm...  lost my line of thought...  ;)

On 2/17/06, Carlos Perelló Marín <carlos.perello at canonical.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 12:16 -0500, Og Maciel wrote:
> > Actually, it wouldn't be imposing since the translations to pt_PT
> > don't even amount to 10%...  If you were to consider the 30-something
> > percent of the pt_BR translations in the equation, we could all,
> > Brazilians, Portuguese, Angoleans, etc, etc work on one single
> > language pack that would initially be seeded with 30% of pt_BR
> > translations...  but 30% should be better than 10%... or even 0%...
>
> As far as I know, Brazilian people prefer English strings vs. Portuguese
> from Portugal translations. In their opinion, the language has changed
> already a lot and it's a bit hard to understand each other a bit.
>
> I don't speak Portuguese (none of its variants) so I cannot say that
> it's true, but I tend to believe it's true if most of the Brazilian
> people I know say that.
>
> With the information I know, I don't think that people from Portugal
> will be happy if we change all translations to Brazilian Portuguese.
>
> Anyway, we don't have (yet) anyway to merge all those locales into a
> single one with launchpad tools so this would need some voodoo magic
> using .po files directly, after that, we can remove old locales from
> Rosetta, but I will be against it if I don't get the confirmation from
> all sides (Thinking on LoCo/translation teams here) that all agree on
> doing something so big like this.
>
> This decision has other main impact, upstream. We either block imports
> from upstream to prevent that pt_BR and/or pt_PT locales are created
> again, losing any updates they do, or you try to include them into this
> big change.
>
> Cheers.
>
> >
> > On 2/17/06, Matthew East <mdke at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 12:03 -0500, Og Maciel wrote:
> > > > Hey Matt,
> > > >
> > > > Going back to the stats I got from LP, it seems that the Brazilian PT
> > > > translation is by far more advanced than the other 2 branches.  If we
> > > > can get a hold of the pt_PT admin and receive his consent, could we
> > > > turn the pt_BR the default portuguese language pack, rename it to be
> > > > PT only, and remove any other pt remaining?  I'm putting myself at the
> > > > service of the portuguese speaking community to then spearhead,
> > > > together with volunteers from all branches, to unify it.  Anyone
> > > > against it?  From the technical POV, could someone do this (from
> > > > Rosetta, LP, etc) with me?
> > >
> > > It is technically possible, but extremely undesirable. This would turn
> > > the Portuguese version of Ubuntu into a brazilian version, and I
> > > understand that the two dialects are very different. I believe that
> > > those members of the Brazilian team that are able to translate into
> > > "international" Portuguese should do so, but mass copying or merging is
> > > a very bad idea indeed, I think.
> > >
> > > My view is that in general, translation teams can work together,
> > > depending on the level of divergence in dialects. However, mass imposing
> > > a dialect on another one is a bad idea.
> > >
> > > --
> > > mdke at ubuntu.com
> > > gnupg pub 1024D/0E6B06FF
> > >
> > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
> > >
> > > iD8DBQBD9gOCtSaF0w5rBv8RAvm0AJ40CidLpVI37h9dULUnooAZB95ebACfbFyI
> > > PrAGKzcNTfhis1CM+eg6zCg=
> > > =j1Kj
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Og B. Maciel
> >
> > ogmaciel at ubuntu.com
> > ogmaciel at ubuntubrasil.org
> > og.maciel at gmail.com
> >
> > GPG Keys: D5CFC202
> >
> > http://www.ogmaciel.com (en_US)
> > http://blog.ogmaciel.com (pt_BR)
>
> --
> Carlos Perelló Marín
> Ubuntu => http://www.ubuntu.com
> mailto:carlos.perello at canonical.com
> http://carlos.pemas.net
> Valencia - Spain
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQBD9gkPEuPMamD5V9cRAr6nAJsEvYNl4hAqb8hfRwnGT7oTWmHokgCePI2Z
> K4UKeLwN4q9GC5wu3Qy2cCk=
> =8N3s
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

--
Og B. Maciel

ogmaciel at ubuntu.com
ogmaciel at ubuntubrasil.org
og.maciel at gmail.com

GPG Keys: D5CFC202

http://www.ogmaciel.com (en_US)
http://blog.ogmaciel.com (pt_BR)