On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:35:32PM +0100, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote: > On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 10:07:30PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote: [...] > > Moreover PO files may be changed without modification of PO-Revision-Date, > > so this does not seem to be robust. > > They _may_ be changed without updating the revision date, but shouldn't > be.
Right, so the 'translators must update debian/changelog' rule may be replaced by 'translators must update PO-Revision-Date'. > The only case when the PO-Revision-Date is not changed and which is > ok this way is when the .po-files get msgmerged with updated templates. > > So, do you say hereby, that this functionality is not needed at all? Not at all, I am just trying to evaluate its drawbacks. If all PO files were gathered into a single place as described at the bottom of http://lists.debian.org/debian-i18n/2004/debian-i18n-200401/msg00061.html requiring updates of debian/changelog files would not make sense, so your script might be very helpful then. As Steve Langasek told in another thread, you have to balance workload of translators and maintainers. Maybe someone has to write another script to report changes within packages in subdirectories since the last upload, including a) new changelog entries and b) updated PO files. If you do not make maintainers' life harder, they should have no reason to refuse to switch to another scheme. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]