Is Aptitude upstream?
khaledhosny at eglug.org
Sun Aug 1 17:34:13 BST 2010
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 12:18:05AM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 12:03 AM, Khaled Hosny wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 11:38:01PM +0800, Arne Goetje wrote:
> >> On 08/01/2010 10:41 PM, Hannie wrote:
> >>> On https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+lang/nl/ I find
> >>> many templates that should not be translated by us, Ubuntu Dutch
> >>> Translation Team. With Gnome and KDE it is not so difficult, because it
> >>> is usually in the name. But with others I am not sure if we should
> >>> translate them or not. One of them is Aptitude. Is this upstream
> >>> (Debian), or not?
> >>> https://translations.launchpad.net/ubuntu/maverick/+source/aptitude/+pots/aptitude/nl/+translate?field.alternative_language-empty-marker=1
> >>> In fact, only few of the 1340 templates are NOT upstream (e.g.
> >>> (K)Ubuntu-docs, software-center, app-install-data).
> >>> Would it not be a good idea to mention in the list of templates whether
> >>> it is upstream or Ubuntu?
> >>> Hannie Dumoleyn
> >> In general, you should translate any template where translations are
> >> still missing, no matter if they come from upstream or they are native
> >> to Ubuntu.
> > I think this is a very bad advice actually, we are not helping better
> > localisation by wasting time doing downstream translations that are very
> > unlikely to be used upstream. We should instead encourage Ubuntu
> If those strings show up in the GUI, they will be visible to the Ubuntu
> users and hence should be translated. Even if upstream has abandoned
> them already or they are native to Ubuntu, users still see them.
I never said otherwise, I'm just against the idea of translating them
silently in Ubuntu, I instead suggest communicating with upstream
translators beforehand to avoid any possiple duplication of effort.
> > translators to communicate with upstream projects to reach a common
> > background. For example, though packages in Ubuntu might be slightly
> > older than current upstream releases, usually the differences are
> > minimal that it is very easy to translate the latest version upstream
> > then "backport" it to the version in Ubuntu and then fix any
> > differences. This means with next upstream sync, the difference will be
> > zero to very minimal. Most translation teams are underpowered unpaid
> Yep, I also wrote this.
> > volunteers, we need to manage those limited resources for the greater
> > benefit, not wasting time redoing translations and re-reviewing
> > translations.
> Of course, if upstream has already translations which are still missing
> in Launchpad, they should just get downloaded and imported into
> Launchpad manually. But if upstream doesn't have translations ready yet
> and we are close to release, it would be better if those strings get
> translated in Launchpad anyway and submitted to upstream for inclusion
> into the next packaged version.
I can't agree more, but your original advise wasn't suggesting this, not
the way I read it at at least. I just want to stress on communicating
and cooperating with upstream right from the start, not as an after
Putting my upstream hat, I hate downstream translators "fixing" non-bugs
in my translation because they didn't even try to communicate with me.
With my downstream hat on, I hate spending my already limited time doing
translation that will be trashed within few months because some one else
already translated it upstream.
Arabic localiser and member of Arabeyes.org team
Free font developer
More information about the ubuntu-translators