El Sa, 26-02-2005 a las 09:55 +0100, Denis Barbier escribi�: > This is great. If you do not know how to add it to Alioth, I can put it > under http://people.debian.org/~barbier/
It's ok, but I'd prefer if you could point me to some documentation explaining how to add it to alioth. > > Second, as you could see there is no link with the translator's email, > > this is because we don't have this stored, one maintainer complained to > > me that the only way to know that is reading the translation, and trying > > to guess. At least we should add this the INFOS. > > Do you mean that the Translator field should be mandatory, with a valid > email address? At least, we need an easy way to get in touch with the translator, without reading the manpage, usually in a language the maintainer doesn't understand, a standard header in the source code as proposed, for example. As a complement a mandatory field in the INFOS file would allow automatic processing for a webpage like the proposed one in an easy way. > > Version: X.Y > > Encoding: foo > > Original: origina.file > > Original-Package-Version: bar 1.5 + cvs xx.yy.zz > > CVS-Repository: ++++ > > Original-CVS-Revision: X.YY > > Last-Translator: name <email> > > Previous-Translators: name1 <email1>; name2 <email2> ... > > Reviewers: the same > > > > At this time there is little script in the ddp named check_packaged.pl, > > it diffs the files in the package and in the cvs, I did that some time > > ago, but it seems to me a temporary solution. > > Huh? Why is manual edition of a file better than an automatic check? Sorry, I explained it wrong, the automatic check is ok. Sometimes it isn't worth bother the maintainer with some changes in the manpage source code, for example, the addition of a new reviewer, but only diffing the manpages report an outdated manpage. I propose to include in the manpage's header Version: X.Y and update .Y to reflect this minor changes that doesn't affect the final document and check that with the script.
