Bug#980885: manpages-es-extra: Suitable for Bullseye?
On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 23:51, Mario Blättermann wrote: > Hello Javier, > > as Helge already wrote, manpages-es-extra is far too outdated to worth > shipping it in Bullseye. It is *now* the time to get rid of this > package. > Indeed, this is the case I have opened Bug #984734 today to request this. Sorry for the delay as this should have been done a long time ago already. > Tomorrow we will release a new version of manpages-l10n, which will > contain Spanish translations for the first time, after manpages-es > vanished from Debian (for good reasons). I'm almost finished with the > import of the plain text translations from manpages-es-extra, so I > think the .po files will be available for translators a few days after > the upcoming release. This means in return: Because manpages-l10n > doesn't distinguish between »es« and »es-extra« files, the release in > march will include the newly imported .po files – and raise file > conflicts. I think you agree with me that it's better to have 100 .po > files (at least 80% translated) which are up-to-date than 200 terribly > outdated plain text translations which nobody benefits of. > I fully agree with this approach and would suggest you. To fix the file conflicts I guess you could add a Conflicts with older versions of manpages-es-extra. Would it make sense to have a transitioning (dummy) package to have users migrate from manpages-es-extra to manpages-l10n? That way users with the manpages-es-extra package installed (for whatever reason, but maybe because it was at some point pulled in because 'manpages-es' was in the Spanish task selection) would pull in automatically manpages-l10n. Best regards Javier
Bug#980885: manpages-es-extra: Suitable for Bullseye?
Hello Javier, as Helge already wrote, manpages-es-extra is far too outdated to worth shipping it in Bullseye. It is *now* the time to get rid of this package. Tomorrow we will release a new version of manpages-l10n, which will contain Spanish translations for the first time, after manpages-es vanished from Debian (for good reasons). I'm almost finished with the import of the plain text translations from manpages-es-extra, so I think the .po files will be available for translators a few days after the upcoming release. This means in return: Because manpages-l10n doesn't distinguish between »es« and »es-extra« files, the release in march will include the newly imported .po files – and raise file conflicts. I think you agree with me that it's better to have 100 .po files (at least 80% translated) which are up-to-date than 200 terribly outdated plain text translations which nobody benefits of. Best Regards, Mario
Bug#980885: manpages-es-extra: Suitable for Bullseye?
Package: manpages-es-extra Version: 0.8a-19.1 Severity: important X-Debbugs-Cc: Mario Blättermann Hello Javier, as stated in the description, manpages-es-extra is really outdated with no hope of receiving any further updates. Is this really suitable for bullseye? Manpages-es is already (long) gone. Manpages-l10n is in the process of importing all previous spanish translations (where possible). By using po4a, we are able to keep all pages up to date. If enough content (>= 80%) is still translated, the page is shipped (with all outdated paragraphs in english), while the remaining pages are not shipped (but might be reactivated later). We also attempt to unfuzzy trivial strings (like version number changes or updated markup), so some pages with only editorial changes might actually still reach 80% (and thus being shipped). And if further translators come along, they can much more easily pick up and recomplete/update the pages. So far, we haven't imported any of the pages from manpage-es-extra, but this will happen soon, but too late before the freeze. So there are two possible approaches: 1. If the release-managers agree we will update manpages-l10n in March *with* pages form manpages-es-extra (those which make 80%). Then they are proper in Bullseye. 2. We provide backports for manpages-es, which will include pages from manpages-es-extra (newer, but of course file conflicts). So I suggest to remove manpages-es-extra from Bullseye. This would ease 1. above (i.e. increase the chances for late acceptance in March of a new version with updated pages). Also please consider if the outdated manpages-es-extra still does users a service? Of course, if 1. does not work out, these man pages will only be available via backports, i.e. 2. Mario (the upstream maintainer of manpages-l10n and the primary importer of the pages from manpages-es-extra) is in CC, he can give more details where necessary. -- System Information: Debian Release: bullseye/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') manpages-es-extra depends on no packages. Versions of packages manpages-es-extra recommends: pn manpages-es Versions of packages manpages-es-extra suggests: ii konqueror [man-browser] 4:20.12.0-4 ii man-db [man-browser] 2.9.3-2 -- Dr. Helge Kreutzmann deb...@helgefjell.de Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php 64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/ signature.asc Description: PGP signature
