On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 08:47:33PM +0300, Dimitris Glezos wrote:
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Bill Nottingham
> 2) I was unable to ascertain a functional upstream for this package,
> so there both are no updated translations that could be pulled, nor
> a way to actually submit updated ones
I'm the upstream, so it was my duty to move the templates to the
translation team and pack back the translation, and I failed to do
A related fact is that when I looked around after I got specspo,
I noted that the misdesign tends to prefer obsolete translations,
even obsolete copies of the English descriptions to the one stored in
rpm database. I submitted a bug about it, but then I got burnt out,
did not watch the status of the bug, nor did maintain the old data
Moreover, I thought that when a bug caused that rpm did not display
any translation, it got very long until anyone noticed.
Consequently, I had the impression that very few people are
interested in the translated descriptions.
That impression might have been false... It might have been a
mistake that I accepted the specspo package being the type who lives
in the LANG=POSIX exclusively.
Back to the original question: I think that the descriptions have the
tendency to change very infrequently, so it still might be worth it
to include the obsolete rpm.
Yes, I admit that I have made a big mistake.
Now, when this has been brought to my attention, is there anything I
can do to help? I think I could still rebuild with the newly
submitted translations, perhaps it could be pushed to F11 even though
we are in freeze?
I'm afraid the long term solution should probably be to find someone
who is at least minimally interested in translations, instalation
process, and/or pirut^Wwhats-the-current-rpm-gui-frontend.
Again, I'm sorry that I did not manage to pay attention to specspo.