Dear Christian, Christian PERRIER wrote: > I would hereby kindly ask to consider [...] I am considering to ask > our release team to *block* transitions for such packages with > uncoordinated debconf changes, on a case by case basis.
JFTR: Menacing is _neither_ "kindly asking" nor does it leave an option "to consider". > During last weeks, several package maintainers did such changes > (ledgersmb, icinga, pleiades, uptimed, nginx, nova and, last but not > least, screen). Since you mention one of my packages explicitly, I have to object: On http://people.debian.org/~jfs/debconf6/html/x59.html#AEN86 there is written: | I18N & L10N FAQ for maintainers | | How do I get a given text translated? | | For translate package description or debconf templates, you have do | not need to do anything at all. The DDTP infrastructure will send | the translatable descriptions volunteers, and process the resulting | translations with no need for you to interact. Addition of debconf | templates is followed by translation teams that will send you new | translations for them through the Bug Tracking System (you can | contact debian-i18n, however, if you would like translations before | releasing a new package version). That's exactly what I did (and planned to do) and it sounds perfectly sane to me. You are (co-) author of that document and it is referred to in the developer's reference in the "Best packaging practices" section at http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-i18n And this is the first answered question in the FAQ and hence obviously the most important one, otherwise it wouldn't come first, would it? And yes, there are further answers in that FAQ. But how should I know when reading this that I _must_ _not_ follow the advice cited above and that the things in the very last question(*) of that FAQ are not as optional as the first two words of the answer ("You can") suggest? (*) Who reads an FAQ further if the first answer perfectly answers what you want to know? IMHO things would generally go smoother and with far less angryness on both sides if such mails would be less reproachful and less menacing. E.g. your bug report at http://bugs.debian.org/677303 was a good and friendly start to introduce me into the non-trivial translation workflow of debconf templates. But your not so friendly mail to -devel et al. (cited above) destroyed quite a lot of my willingness to invest time in finding out what exactly I'm supposed to do with regards to debconf translations -- also because I had to waste quite some time to protest and defend myself against your allegations (i.e. to write this mail) -- hopefully without starting the next flame-war. Going now back to continue my packaging work (including some i18n stuff) and fixing RC bugs. Thanks for list^Wreading. Regards, Axel -- ,''`. | Axel Beckert <a...@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/ : :' : | Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin `. `' | 1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486 202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE `- | 4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329 6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120613162636.gg3...@sym.noone.org
