[Debian-l10n-devel] Translations cleanup

Arne Goetje arne.goetje at canonical.com
Thu Jun 10 07:36:39 UTC 2010

On 06/10/2010 01:09 AM, Nicolas François wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 07:56:42PM +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
>> Quoting Arne Goetje (arne.goetje at canonical.com):

>>> I just stumbled upon this translation overview page:
>>> http://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po/
>>> The script which generates the page seems to need some improvement:
>>>   * it seems not to use the iso_639_3.xml file from the iso-codes
>>> package, since many language codes are marked as "Unknown language".
>> I'm not sure this is easy to achieve. Nicolas, any idea?
> I think the scripts are using
> http://svn.debian.org/viewsvn/debian-l10n/dl10n/trunk/lib/Locale/
> I'm sure it's possible to use the iso XML files instead, but I do not know
> how to parse those files. Also, I will not have time to do this, but can
> update the data at the end of the files of the above directory.

That would also work for the meantime.

>>>   * language codes with @ modifiers are not parsed correctly. The
>>> script should split the string at the @ and display it like this:
>>> ca at valencia Catalan (valencia).
> This would need more input.
> I do not understand what "not parsed correctly" means here. Do you have
> links on what are the consequences of this incorrect parsing. Then I would
> be able to find which script could be improved.

The same link I have mentioned above 
(http://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po/). All language codes with 
@ modifiers are labelled as "Unknown language".

> Currently, the database contains lines like:
> po/ca at valencia.po!ca at valencia!205t0f0u!po/accerciser_1.10.1-1_ca at valencia.po!Carles Ferrando Garcia<carles.ferrando at gmail.com>!Catalan (Valenci&#224;)<tradgnome at softcatala.org>
>>>   * some entries look bogus, e.g. vi_AR. There are no translations
>>> with that code, so it needs to be investigated where this code comes
>>> from.
>> Certainly from some bogus package providing a vi_AR.po file.
> People (other than me;) could hunt these issues, but I think this person
> will loose a lot of energy when the wrong file is coming from upstream and
> not from Debian.

We could remove them from the package by patching it.

>>> Also, I'd like to ask if there is any coordinated effort planned or
>>> underway to fix the .po file names in the packages themselves? Quite
>>> a few files need to be renamed in order to be useable.
>> There have been some initiatives. In a quite distant past, I reported
>> a few such errors to the relevant packages.
> The only think I might be willing to do (i.e. does not cost too much from
> my time, and might sometimes have a result) is to issue warning (those are
> linked in the PTS page for source packages).

Would those warnings be noticed by anyone? And would they be acted upon?


More information about the Debian-l10n-devel mailing list