tl;dr: We need more docs about best practices to handle translations as
a package maintainer


My fellow developers,

there are two things in being a DD that I truly despise. The one is
keeping the machine readable debian/copyright up to date, the other is
handling of translations, regardless of whether it's po-debconf, manpage translations or program translations (when I am also the upstream).

I might rant about debian/copyright when I blow my fuse next time, but
today it's going to be translations. For me, it seems impossible to
support translator's work without putting a significant burden of
additional work to put on oneself. Especially when one uses version
control and does not do all development in Mast^wdebian/latest, dealing
with translations is a nightmare when it comes to merge. As the Newbie¹
DD I am, I keep running into either nightmare merges, or unnecessarily
fuzzed or even destroyed translations, in all cases feeling even more
stupid and incompetent when some translator points out my mistakes. I
have felt being sent back and forth between different workflows (all of
them wrong) by following random advice without being able to find
authoritative explanation.

I might have a fundamantal misunderstandig of procedures, but all
documentation one finds, including Chapter 8 in the Developer's
Reference (which links to a document by Tomohiro KUBOTA which is no
longer there), elaborate on how one would do actual translations, but
doesn't go as far as giving best practice documentation about what a
package maintainer is supposed to do to make translation blend into a
normal packaging workflow without being a nuisance ("put them into the
po directory and build the package" doesn't fit a modern packaging
workflow using version control).

My example package is adduser, but I think that my questions might apply
to other packages as well. adduser has both its program messages and the
manual pages translatable, the latter being done with po4a. I am aware
that there are also translations for debconf templates, but adduser
doesn't have those (any more). I think the problems that show with
debconf template translations are similar to the pain one feels with documentation and program translations. I actively avoid using debconf
in my packages because I don't want to go through the pain that handling translations causes, and many parts of Debian consider it bad practice
to use debconf. But that's an entirely different rant.

Handling translations does hurt when the sources are stored in version
control because I constantly end up having changes to pot and po files
in commits where they don't belong, or uncommitted changes that prevent
me, for example, from doing rebases. I have tried to build a workflow
that doesn't hurt me as package maintainer as much, but it has turned
out that this doesn't work because many translators don't care.

Please don't take me wrong, I know this is a rant, and I know that
you'll notice that I am typing this with my fists clenched. But my time
and my nerves and my mental health as as important as it is to be nice
to my translators. I do care, but sometimes it's really hard to maintain
a straight and friendly face while cursing our tools and docs inside.

Whenever I am angry about something in Debian, I start writing docs. So
I try this here, but here I don't know enough to be really helpful. I
hope that this rant will start a positive discussion with actual results
that I could pour into a Wiki page that might actually help with the
pain I am feeling, assuming that many other maintainers feel as well.

Let me try to summarize what I have understood regarding translations
and what my problems are with that.

(1)
When writing software, docs or debconf templates, the respective author
marks certain strings as translateable. There is a number of conventions
to do so which are language dependent. Let's assume that has been done
the right way, there are docs about this.

(2)
There is some point in the development process when it is time to ask
for translations. Translators need a POT file which contains all the translatable strings, and they make a PO file from that which contains
the actual translation.

(3)
Some program (xgettext for program translations, po4a for manual pages
and some podebconf tool for debconf templates) is used to pull the
translatable strings from the source code and to create a POT file.

xgettext doesn't even try to create a meaningful header and overwrites
whatever one has written into the previous version of the POT file, so a wrapper is already needed to have a header that translators can fill
(which they usually don't do).

For Adduser's program translations, my call to xgettext is:
xgettext --keyword=mtx --keyword=gtx --omit-header -o "$TEMP_FILE" --from-code=UTF-8 -L perl adduser deluser $(find . -name "*.pm")².
TEMP_FILE then gets the generated header prepended to result in
adduser.pot.

I have seen this being done in debian/rules' clean target which, in
in-tree builds, causes the POT file to be changed as well and I don't understand at which step of the packaging process it would be a good
idea to commit that POT file. If I build my package out of tree (like I
do out of tradition of svn-buildpackage, I have gbp configured to use ../build-area), the POT file ends up newly generated in the source
package but never gets updated in git. Adduser had POT files from 2022
in git until just recently because I just never noticed. There is no
lintian check and no check inside tracker.d.o for this.

In other packages, there is a dedicated m4 macro to call xgettext which
doesn't make things easier to understand.

(4)
Then,
msgmerge --update --backup=none --no-fuzzy-matching "${PO_FILE}" "${POT_FILE}" is called for every existing PO file. This doesn't move the header from
the POT file to the existing PO file so stupidities like "# COPYRIGHT
THE PACKAGE CREATOR" just never get fixed because the translators don't
seem to care.

If a po file for a language already exists during this step, the already existing translation gets merged into the new po file. In some
circumstances that I have not understood yet, the translation gets
"fuzzied", which I have been told causes a lot of unnecessary and
repeated work for the translators which I am supposed to avoid by doing
manual work myself which I don't understand. Not doing this work is
condemned as "not being nice to translators".

Basically the same applies for this step than for the POT generation
step, with the additional hardship that the PO files are generated,
being written to by a program AND STILL contain a significant part of
human work. I never know how much work of other people I am destroying
by calling msgmerge out of line. In which stage of package build do I do msgmerge? Do I commit the merged po files, when do I commit them, what
do I do with them during git merge when a feature branch is merged?

(5)
podebconf-report-po is used to generate the calls for translation. One
message is sent to this mailing list with the pot file attached, and for
each existing po file, the translators listed in that file get an
individual mail with just the respective po file attached.

If the msgmerge step is forgotten, they get an already translated po
file that doesn't match the pot and therefore is useless.

In theory, for an already existing package, the POT file is not needed,
right?

(6)
Depending on the age of the existing translations, about half of the
messages I send to individual translators are going to bounce. Am I
supposed to report that to debian-i18n@l.d.o as a followup to the
general translation request so that new translators can take up the
outdated translatorless translations? Or am I supposed to send the
general translation request to debian-i18n last so that I can explicitly mention the translatorless languages there?

(8)
When a translator does a translation, they send me a new po file
containing the actual translation. If it's a new language, they start
with the pot file that hopefully has the correct header, and if it's an existing language, they start with the old po file, which almost always
has a historically grown header that is in more or less dire need of streamlining and cleaning. They either take the PO/POT file from the
e-mail attachment, use a package the pulled from the archive³ or they
pull the PO/POT file from git.

They usually don't bother about the header or copyright, so things like
package name, licenseª, Project-ID-Version and PO-Revision-Date are
often questionable, unclear, just plain wrong or cause extra work to
package maintainer because, for example, a different license was chosen
than the actual package is licensed under either out of incompetence or
not caring.

Am I supposed to fix those headers in the po file myself? Am I supposed
to ask the translator to fix the headers? Or am I supposed to just
ignore all of that and just accept whatever I get sent? I often feel
like a smart-mouthed know-it-all when I ask a translator to improve the
headers of their PO file.

(9)
I then commit the po file the translator sent me to version control

(10)
And then I eventually release the package.

In theory, it would probably be good to do all that regeneration when
preparing a package for release. Why don't we have a debian/rules target
like debian/rules prepare-release that might be useful for that? How
could we protect us against uploading a package with outdated POT/PO
files? People make mistakes.

How am I supposed to handle the unavoidable differences between git
branches, that are probably easier to solve when I am just merging a
feature branch but can be a major pain when merging suite branches like experimental, stable, unstable where translation work has already been
done?

There must be some smarter method when merging to mas^wdebian/unstable
than (1) move away all po files, (2) merge, (3) ignore all merge
conflicts in po files, (4) regenerate POT, (5) restore po files moved
away in step 1, (6) msgmerge, (7) do a dedicated translation commit
(one? or one per file?).

I have caused enough breakage in adduser in the last weeks and have
wasted enough time of both translators and myself. For the time being, I
am halting all my efforts to be "nice to translators" to avoid breaking
more things and to keep the chaos in my package trees and version
control low. You can read from my git histories pretty well that I don't
know zilch about what I am doing.

This has to stop as long as being nice on translators means multiplying
my own degree of unthanked busy work.

This happens through a crucial part of adduser development since we are
nearing the freeze, but first I need to build knowledge that I should
have built 25 years ago but noone bothered to document. I really don't
know how translations in Debian have come up to THIS point in the
absence of serious docs. Maybe my fellow DDs are smarter than I am with
all tools involved.

Thanks for reading up to this point. Writing this message alone has cost
me three hours of my time that I'd rather have put in productive
packaging work, and a sleepless night. You know, when I blow a fuse, I
rant, and then I start writing docs. I guess when I put the result of
this discussion in a wiki page, it should be under i18n, right? I am
inclined to put on https://wiki.debian.org/I18n a dedicated chapter
titled "for package maintainers", probably between "Keyboard input infrastructure support" and "Meetings" as this is a matter beyond
interna of the translation teams and the i18n effort. Am I on the
correct track with that?

Ich habe fertigǂ. Thanks in advance,
Marc Haber

¹ I have only been a DD for a bit more than two decades
² adduser has strings that get used in both translated and untranslated
form, making sure that messages written to the console are translated
and messages written to syslog are written in English to make handling
bug repors easier
³ I have received translations that were obviously done against the POT
file from stable.
ª I have received translations that placed the translation under the
same copyright as $SOME_OTHER_PACKAGE.
Ç‚ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Trapattoni#In_popular_culture


H4sIAAAAAAAA/81b7XPaSNL/vn/FbPZcceoQIN5xNnfLOk5ClWO7DL6t3F4qO0gD6Cw0rF7i cH/9dfdIIwEaAa489Vw+OCBrft3T0+/T/olx100iEbJ1KBchX7E45EHk89iTwQ8/sUu53oTe Yhmz88tX7NwL4NWYbQQPGQ9cxpN4KUO2FKF4BW9Pl17E5p4vGPzvelEcerMkFi5LAhdIxEvB Ir4SzPccAUiMR/RMs8CdR74QdUB6N76fTNnoYfrh9p79fPVxNL7+ZfT27f3VZPK3Gvt0NbqH t35YRQvPZS9e4Acghp9e3IXy38KJrbFr/UOEEWzjQhNo1+1O918BvHUv1jKMrY8IYP2aLCJr KvV7v6SMRHVXzDwe1GW4QOTbqXUZChKN9ZbH4oK1mq2u1WxbzR6z7Ytm/69Nu9kkAne31r34 6kX5u8i09fHWejtiH24vPo7/+s/bmyt695pHsTVN5S5DeFUmIbtBSf28gY91seKe/4v4xldr X9Qdufpbui5YJMCnNRV8dcE+btK9M/zOfo7h5/6iSxnEIgB6mzUwFYtvcWPtcy94zZwlDyMR v3mYvrMG2+8ib3MRWleBI10vWFywwcyL1Ub9JOS+9U6Gq+iCBWv6Gr1pvWbq45vzgP34htmv XuPrP2khX7TsfnaAt4G/YaGUMVvxDb7AOKMDA91ahDJZs1gq7dlEsVjViwe+BdlrMlf49Nke DjL4G8nkGk8tYtz35RMoJJ/HAB+AiKMKtKFGazV7W8zKQCBz8ZNUIBmwGayvASZr4XhzxEiB EIF5AewQzGYlXWFGGTQzFHikRPPkxUtihIeLZAXHFaH18QCMLiJKHuxXrkVIimuEbtutDHoK krYsQq/BBzhv9REtHp57bi7OULBVEiew+w0T3xwQlvfVzH572C3SWErYt+uFABHFbCaQaT6L pA8+A5xBvDQCddr9H36qMdiUb81B83hcxFVy+eMsegnHAgbrIm/gjaIaA3fEluB2ONCdg0aD uNj78ds6u/rmxbBRM8VO+zkUGdFSaqveqqDQex4FOBU48ACsZ4fS4U117fzz0K4gDzJSxFG1 UvqgsbDSDN5rGQDBHhEPob6CY+MzP1V/wcDRLAQ7c60zl51TEPgy+TT5gq9b7HqUf31VQbej P3ft5nEyfeJKgg769woz7vSbBfCuAXzkopMs4p/jDs7cV6xeN2MP+vqz3WrZz9EGI3i3Ofgu p1E4icpT6LZbufMcVFkrOXraiiuFOgXaSwV0L5dTs2kXhNa2NdFOp59/7h6pBsdy0LGLHHSP 2l3BcjhbidUM49ucfldBqFsgZNvV+pbTgnBZ2FWFznV77aOYL/Oju04H3z7sc7q9/jMoqihX 9NoPx3jtbr/Kigp8l9qShsfMxUBgYDp8SI3AsoDLBprMmkOYO8HhPZCZYY43yp9UWNtgoD/3 mrn/6xc+D+z8nUGrc9QhHOsWe03b7F0eTvP1D9u+vnLfvTxpuRGgIcB3mq2kKQpwDykk/H4B eYk5+emBPE7AoZi74o/iC73zBRJeiemWiCsoDKqNd08Zzx8Oh4xeu1WNGoinU8NQr9PO9WQw rNATnb+dRQzqFJanmzuGZLafXif35YNh61nEHB68VOmj44goEu4FvFNB0hgMCjIrOQbyQMd5 1X6zXXADD5Ore5XCoNqk3+5vH+7YTCIkaRTYhCODubdI0jxdFdMqkxdhKEMztWHn2LhQwfPA 7lea8MlurGDHlTY8aO0Ki4QzeRPIGkkLRffGsvekJ1breFNnI7W/QAgXc+116K14uEHfSYf1 o5FuT9MdQ5kbBtxXgoY9wdd1KND3w5ZDKM+wWoQSeuYFdDpGzH7nNHs8YIuDfv80vPw7iLwS eWCyghziJUKmrl+pv3IfRszh8CTL2rcqelappsO2rqPvRLjyIuywQKIXgCcwr9GtAC/4yn34 UDhLTMLSetYI0NFldxKIb+B5UCJzsIEkFDWMkEvcngvFvBmiVQWx5lH05KreGW0qWJiRdKwq rpol0abGYtB8vuBeYF7d25VF1jfArFEJwrxYC/IplGQcwIAMs7Aow/wJmM9mDVv0AkeGIWzX 3xhhjR65ICrAS0J0kq7AEKAIzkO5SmVnBtdtpmkmnL+z3zeNm8/MuGaQuwbVovQCxRjqS7of APnUCCpAhv1TrAGEHyXrtS/wKMAVNSB4xiFXthEddN9201gwTkRMnuzPRMacwe+2qYISJFD1 gBUcFSfsZndoDBRppojUKusau9mzjwHJgj6IW8LhqSQ9Al34E1iuSkiBQPuIZGILdyf5Z8hJ LBOHbJt6c3pFFd2huSD4jYcBdU9NPOj6cyZ8tK+07UkHg0kP9tsAx0lCrIH8jZZUBUN9U1Z1 WSXlSg3om4qeS5n4LmZjKmqUIWNyVgFtTDjxJgKZRWcXKcM/zKgxo4Rvj2QKf8y9wH1Jjlgl jkawVvN5pXJZf45KZTMlu/UMShV4re6B1t6Ze0Jjz261u+ZUsdCUTpHnMgkqLLXdNOVMZ1Hj jFLgIK3JsP4Pa6QCNarIUKAr3wseK+Db/YIFTiXkrhKDHsT/ReLFG8VqABEw9Bzwu5CrwqHh WtXYf1p6zpJuOljhXygiscL8FxbORBhh6AvEAuzpa/4MrZWO/cDdgN3u6L74gyZMTXHlC3Cf oPs+3TmAEGSCpEFinqxC7bYMqDPki60k8Bcvob5ot9hsE8Nv4eR9ESwqOu+AOiyT5zqUwNMK RJc5LLrV0JuIYh7GaRdnT5ouj5Y1vC+KYJ+LoEZXK57vitR64hwHiqQYIjg832DIAmJ7aHOJ 8iY/60hwozXM9la8xiKf6KAMYTUcLGx5zR1BN18csoww2gOD9MVPVIGOr+L++Cy1agjgoHsV N0h2u985QVjREt0nbjECg07vh+Z7LPkQz4HVGhjDwkMPQ7erEaQlyJ7SCuQwJmGqCwKUsFBs 7+HtHg+9zM4hzroCvCPkXrMNG19dXbFJ7DK72WzXbavVbNqv6uydDPfwQNprMISZ52vzmoC5 cbbiGEupTgeXgJz/RbmdSOU+MoSQvgcH+0ApCdiFOnAtMIjR56DZ9OwPyyIzw58WqfpLjJQq n93DhLg622DeqOI6CC4G66e6+5X5MAf6MEephiEryBWlI7CaSmLNXgVSz5wk3PmCR7jfmDxe bko8zlIRqLfFIvF5CK4f6lSqgUqOQbUT4Py+epxWgTfdajJA7hd6yDNIMhXkHowW7Iy7mWDT nhhIMRQ+/6aE6CyF84jGBdE+I72HdhbtdzqMYuoYL1gmwoeUAoWBXQZKBrIOBHIFPyEtMLeA 7E57cBD5vRnZjGu889riuPEc7K4xTt6LlfxKBejxOVy3OcivR4xdRI18XGnQtfNLn07/ILvH NdPsbsuYwfIER1M4m4zfV2WVXWPzFdQzGw75qqZF0t7hiwrt6baKIRCquejAvIIGfAH+EiQU U7YJZpAN1xTKS4yD5ABCMceZGUnrGkkUNiIIU6LhSqeRstLQCPWDPLe7+mi67a2ohMabTf/g /E4ogHE5j5+A2msqOxzIEcCP6IEejMgQSRqwmZV0vfmGqMPDfM4HnNcqyhz2+5sH9l4EIoT8 6g5yF89h1/kI0BqfQHjCOENAuOQdcjFJuYAwA8gkntcszQWz42plRFJEiu/nXA2n4PRM6q1e UdD3eZyvLZzLrhCKw0tpi3Mp15Quxbj7J8/3MY0Cec4Tn+7DCOe38fTD7cOUjW4+sd9G9/ej m+mn1xQDZRIzgT0Laies1j62rmFz4AFiHeY/Xt1ffoA1o1/H1+PpJ9zKu/H05moyYe9u79mI 3Y3up+PLh+vRPbt7uL+7nVyB654IkYmZUMpFXWMFJcKMSAZWOogVNd7fXdeoHqKkUGloVd/e 7naGJTb0u2Ul8MhzP+PHuRdGceE7pF/Z163A8LsaKimuWmyvKnzN7mXo5x4OMGJR30SNr0S0 BHQLTot+7i1AQWDvK/2f3s+qVvoSSEsVs/R4n+B20vE5f6bj5d4aUC4Muq6VNcs+bz315cIL ShgN5lT50Mt/Jp5QzIIuz2Sknrpiliy2V+Kx6AcjmqzKcgf9K/qRHSGIi5zWLv3COSrR7x9G 4SB3VxeP4HuI/TtIQwmjUJCXyYI2Vqas47eHlPU7sZxzkE18/Y+wo0VIosqfb/FqVKf/c66K k1D7J4v3SIyukbZWBaqXojMeCOPFZxps2ynqkcNeq3yiMcSMR+wlCZQBVow16vmZ/M4DeB1j n91VzCVp9WNZigQZSy3/in6JGmbZ8N6MO49AGWDmYFwJVYwY4fH2DAG9ACpBsFQqqTBfeqmn chmWrw4WdxitKRLWWJgECMbXsbUQsV6OK83b6fePHZg5Yb4kHzaynzFspCZaMmWluQc1MXCY 3rB4fQkx/2Z8855GeKn/829sXPAZRn8QLywSsToyUo60Embn6F2bUE8/RGqWkioqzKmw+QXK Ty1vD2s54MzLtEpnW09L6efzLEESqaJuPKfDBT+KmAD3xPGaB7BrkNPBOaWbUEV6ftNJ7hcL SxGCEiGndaj95XpN1xbyiaDSnGbJKZcHeaO0kUFIs7hTdo2Uiazd1O0upadfyPVT6UhfgbUv qs87ExALg5LbsBxL28a1lI/UIQYgtRrLfFL4RmqBJWWGBjJOV6nesLodg/ytAWmi01hRB6Os YawBjTM2OaDjg1M7HrHbqbg0wZ2S40p3m13C1FBfsM3CiAJbSy+IzWKovJippEENCpB6SSWm 0fs9YykXoDEuwU2hJuNwB2SwdLNZIRDj9NWvmlHqQGttEKmKqYI7qlKITnOwV7EqoKpF+VC7 XuSE2LOcVS5rdQqfTe6R/JZyWcLB0gSs8tFTVpkRoe1xv87ulNtmf+BvXmr/YWahayILjn2B LSjlN/ObknRERXUt8dJnydfrkiErTaF35Aj1idPMOX7/JHyaH/nRiDboPWdo1ZwddIbPG0Kt QtR1PIYbjAm4LPV1+uIwSzO8UA/HlE+i6/7AkfdP+pzyadZ8GxXoveO7TcR7dZ9I4xrtBqJV FugONnlytEFhOXEGp4K/Ug319Fp+N4X7/+v0aMY7g5J9/56lNpRBF5LF4nedLdJDFTn3MnT1 2MJkJi3V0idRMp973xiw9Hk7k99FqMrqdwoxlqfOxap1V+z5gmy/aeW2s2+8UbG8uUWW/9lU b+zyW8JlXlUAwe9E6SCpgjBK64d9KZxUUO3WcazckfBDVVB3mMeynrFn/asqRFKlgUicBHqo EK9fqdz6j1fmpPBP8hqxiOKo4XuzxkhZyBQfXFJbq75eQRS1q2YUyHHh1b9u+mGrxk39WsD+ cjeafihxvSmxnI7db1ZF6x1fDvk99enFnCd+yZV9CbzJWToqYaKUdPtSJ02aLmgzx2xh0Nt/ 2OoOSh4aY6Ie/Fjj3xCmOSFejkL6dcQujX979BA8Qr2RX1Slgw/xqRRaxmQ8TTxx8mHn/uQw aHt4wtkfhusc4JHOei2lv33Eh4GNc5lj3xcLyLMJFOf1lHxRGMYZrj34tnEw5m2y9j0HB4Ho BvOZZ9du9g/iZ3+e9gz0TsVfcKTSmMMSl/ygGjtUA8ccWy2qbbDTBcbMKG0fpH9F6wWJKMtd S9gZPJ+dwtA4MLZAR5bmD1APqFyDNIcjW/hCSH8GfQRX3VbJw16vSv3VwCYwqoaq1eCma07j S4j2yohW2hyYGs3VYqTC6QfQ7dNoGrtHheIHa8e0BKtTHZSe8JEU2lUUHj3fVxMXBfZPw+8e sQNq+EQxj5PoZArmAvWE0HqQivm629FUyCH60nnMHOKPh2Ht5j63ckYzRfoPmAlTp+d6phpL 3TD2N8dQ0U3B3zipHnWliFVqQzjY8NIJT0lVsw/Zah6URyTEI7OOk0N+h+1sn5qW5xEg7cNn lATFAyprb5XADg/Cqs7ZkdDXcrFA1cZUo2vyr756iQaxNxF8060OGh9DyVBMiXY82/5fG/0X QJBKVlVDAAA=

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

I'm on mobile, so only a quick reply: merging should be done with msgmerge as well — you need to call it twice, once with the po files from both branches, and once again with the pot file to fix all the location comments and fuzzy flags.

Alternatively, you can define a filter in git to remove(!) locations on checkout and restore them from the pot file on commit, that solves the majority of conflicts.

   Simon

<html>
<head>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
</head>
<body>
<span dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">Hi,</span>
<br>
<br><span dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">I'm on mobile, so only a quick reply: merging should be done with msgmerge as well — you need to call it twice, once with the po files from both branches, and once again with the pot file to
fix all the location comments and fuzzy flags.</span>
<br>
<br><span dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">Alternatively, you can define a filter in git to remove(!) locations on checkout and restore them from the pot file on commit, that solves the majority of conflicts.</span>
<br>
<br><span dir="ltr" style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0;">&nbsp;&nbsp; Simon</span>
<br>
</body>
</html>

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

--=-sZnCRR4pFHcyyUcG4gw0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Marc,

Here are some of my thoughts based on my (relatively little) experience
with both translating to Arabic and receiving translations.

It might also be worthwhile to forward your message to
debian-i18n@l.d.o, since translators and i18n people are more likely to
be subscribed there and less likely to be subscribed here.

On Tue, 2025-03-11 at 12:03 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

(3)
Some program (xgettext for program translations, po4a for manual pages
and some podebconf tool for debconf templates) is used to pull the translatable strings from the source code and to create a POT file.

xgettext doesn't even try to create a meaningful header and overwrites whatever one has written into the previous version of the POT file, so a wrapper is already needed to have a header that translators can fill
(which they usually don't do).

For Adduser's program translations, my call to xgettext is:
xgettext --keyword=mtx --keyword=gtx --omit-header -o "$TEMP_FILE" --from-code=UTF-8 -L perl adduser deluser $(find . -name "*.pm")².
TEMP_FILE then gets the generated header prepended to result in
adduser.pot.

xgettext comes with a ton of options to help you. Have a look at the
diff I've attached for what I've been able to do.

Note that you shouldn't define the plural stuff in the POT file, that's something that's set on a per-language basis. There should also be a
newline between the header and first message block.

I have seen this being done in debian/rules' clean target which, in
in-tree builds, causes the POT file to be changed as well and I don't understand at which step of the packaging process it would be a good
idea to commit that POT file. If I build my package out of tree (like I
do out of tradition of svn-buildpackage, I have gbp configured to use ../build-area), the POT file ends up newly generated in the source
package but never gets updated in git. Adduser had POT files from 2022
in git until just recently because I just never noticed. There is no
lintian check and no check inside tracker.d.o for this.

In other packages, there is a dedicated m4 macro to call xgettext which doesn't make things easier to understand.

Usually, all this stuff with generating and updating POT & PO files is upstream's responsibility to deal with, hence why you'll find little documentation for translating anything other than debconf templates. Since this is a native package, it's up to you to do what you want. My suggestion is to run this script before release; the most important thing is that it is run after the program's messages are updated and _finalised_, and before sending it to translators.

(4)
Then,
msgmerge --update --backup=none --no-fuzzy-matching "${PO_FILE}" "${POT_FILE}"
is called for every existing PO file. This doesn't move the header from
the POT file to the existing PO file so stupidities like "# COPYRIGHT
THE PACKAGE CREATOR" just never get fixed because the translators don't
seem to care.

The header is only touched when the translation is initially created.

If a po file for a language already exists during this step, the already existing translation gets merged into the new po file. In some
circumstances that I have not understood yet, the translation gets "fuzzied",

A "fuzzy" translation is when the source string has been altered but not entirely removed, meaning that the translated string needs to be
rechecked. This often occurs when there's a grammatical change or some rewording in the source string.

which I have been told causes a lot of unnecessary and
repeated work for the translators which I am supposed to avoid by doing manual work myself which I don't understand. Not doing this work is condemned as "not being nice to translators".

Nothing is wrong with making translations fuzzy, sometimes it's
necessary.

I've rarely seen anyone being condemned for fuzzy translations (but then
again, I work in a language team that has virtually no members). The
only reason this would happen is if a maintainer kept making pointless
changes to the source strings to the point that translators are fed up
of reviewing the same strings over and over again, when they could be
creating new translations.

Basically the same applies for this step than for the POT generation
step, with the additional hardship that the PO files are generated,
being written to by a program AND STILL contain a significant part of
human work. I never know how much work of other people I am destroying
by calling msgmerge out of line.

Just make sure that you're happy with the state of messages in the
program, since removing any source strings deletes them from the
translations as well. Since Git is being used, this is theoretically reversible, but really should be avoided in the first place.

In which stage of package build do I do
msgmerge? Do I commit the merged po files, when do I commit them, what
do I do with them during git merge when a feature branch is merged?

In your position, I would leave the translations and the POT file
untouched on the feature branch, and only ever update them on the main
branch after merging.

(5)
podebconf-report-po is used to generate the calls for translation. One message is sent to this mailing list with the pot file attached, and for each existing po file, the translators listed in that file get an
individual mail with just the respective po file attached.

If the msgmerge step is forgotten, they get an already translated po
file that doesn't match the pot and therefore is useless.

In theory, for an already existing package, the POT file is not needed, right?

Yes, in theory, but it's still helpful to attach it for a variety of
reasons e.g. the existing translation is an old garbled mess and
starting new is the best option.

(6)
Depending on the age of the existing translations, about half of the messages I send to individual translators are going to bounce. Am I
supposed to report that to debian-i18n@l.d.o as a followup to the
general translation request so that new translators can take up the
outdated translatorless translations? Or am I supposed to send the
general translation request to debian-i18n last so that I can explicitly mention the translatorless languages there?

According to the manual page (and from what I've seen on
debian-l10n-ar@l.d.o), the language team listed in the PO file (which
should _always_ be debian-l10n-LANG@l.d.o) is Cc'ed by default, so they
will deal with inactive translators. Anyone working on translations
should be subscribed to the list for the relevant language, so it'll be
picked up. You don't need to do anything extra.

(8)
When a translator does a translation, they send me a new po file
containing the actual translation. If it's a new language, they start
with the pot file that hopefully has the correct header, and if it's an existing language, they start with the old po file, which almost always
has a historically grown header that is in more or less dire need of streamlining and cleaning. They either take the PO/POT file from the
e-mail attachment, use a package the pulled from the archive³ or they
pull the PO/POT file from git.

They really shouldn't be taking it from the archive. If you're not happy
with the version of the POT they used, you can attach the correct POT
file and ask them to fix their translations. You're not obligated to use
the file they supply.

They usually don't bother about the header or copyright, so things like package name, licenseª, Project-ID-Version and PO-Revision-Date are
often questionable, unclear, just plain wrong or cause extra work to
package maintainer because, for example, a different license was chosen
than the actual package is licensed under either out of incompetence or
not caring.

Am I supposed to fix those headers in the po file myself? Am I supposed
to ask the translator to fix the headers? Or am I supposed to just
ignore all of that and just accept whatever I get sent? I often feel
like a smart-mouthed know-it-all when I ask a translator to improve the headers of their PO file.

What you do is up to you. Translation headers are annoyingly
inconsistent from a QA perspective, so don't feel bad for asking
translators to fix headers (or fix them yourself if it's easy enough).
I've had to do this for when I recieved translations for miniflux's
debconf templates.

(9)
I then commit the po file the translator sent me to version control

(10)
And then I eventually release the package.

In theory, it would probably be good to do all that regeneration when preparing a package for release. Why don't we have a debian/rules target like debian/rules prepare-release that might be useful for that? How
could we protect us against uploading a package with outdated POT/PO
files? People make mistakes.

I've attached a rough check script in the same diff that tells you if
you're POT is outdated, based on exit code. You could use this in a
pre-commit hook or somewhere in d/rules to fail the build (like execute_before_dh_auto_configure).

How am I supposed to handle the unavoidable differences between git branches, that are probably easier to solve when I am just merging a
feature branch but can be a major pain when merging suite branches like experimental, stable, unstable where translation work has already been
done?

Wouldn't an "theirs" merge strategy for only the translations work?
During a merge conflict, you can use `git checkout --theirs -- po/`, or
use .gitattributes with `po/* merge=theirs` (I haven't tried this).
This way new translations from, for instance, debian/experimental, will
replace the old ones in debian/unstable.

But honestly, if some changes are in debian/experimental or in a feature branch, the translations should really be left alone, since noone will
use it anyway and the package is prone to further changes.

There must be some smarter method when merging to mas^wdebian/unstable
than (1) move away all po files, (2) merge, (3) ignore all merge
conflicts in po files, (4) regenerate POT, (5) restore po files moved
away in step 1, (6) msgmerge, (7) do a dedicated translation commit
(one? or one per file?).

[...]

Thanks for reading up to this point. Writing this message alone has cost
me three hours of my time that I'd rather have put in productive
packaging work, and a sleepless night. You know, when I blow a fuse, I
rant, and then I start writing docs. I guess when I put the result of
this discussion in a wiki page, it should be under i18n, right? I am inclined to put on https://wiki.debian.org/I18n a dedicated chapter
titled "for package maintainers", probably between "Keyboard input infrastructure support" and "Meetings" as this is a matter beyond
interna of the translation teams and the i18n effort. Am I on the
correct track with that?

IMO this information should probably go on i18n.d.o.

If you don't want to deal with translation stuff, I'm happy to help with
that aspect, and if you'd like you can offload that on me.

--
Maytham

--=-sZnCRR4pFHcyyUcG4gw0
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="generate_pot.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/x-patch; name="generate_pot.patch"; charset="UTF-8"

ZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBhL2NoZWNrX3BvdC5zaCBiL2NoZWNrX3BvdC5zaApuZXcgZmlsZSBtb2RlIDEw MDc1NQppbmRleCAwMDAwMDAwLi5mYTM3NTZjCi0tLSAvZGV2L251bGwKKysrIGIvY2hlY2tfcG90 LnNoCkBAIC0wLDAgKzEsMTEgQEAKKyMhL2Jpbi9iYXNoCisKK2N1cnJlbnQ9IiQobWt0ZW1wKSIK K3VwZGF0ZWQ9IiQobWt0ZW1wKSIKKworY2F0IHBvL2FkZHVzZXIucG90IHwgcGVybCAtMDc3NyAt cGUgInMvKC4qPylcblxuLy9zIiA+IiRjdXJyZW50IgorCitHRU5FUkFURV9QTz0iMCIgUE9UX0ZJ TEU9IiR1cGRhdGVkIiAuL2dlbmVyYXRlX3BvdC5zaCA+L2Rldi9udWxsIDI+JjEKK2NhdCAiJHVw ZGF0ZWQiIHwgcGVybCAtMDc3NyAtcGUgInMvKC4qPylcblxuLy9zIiB8IHRlZSAiJHVwZGF0ZWQi ID4vZGV2L251bGwKKworZGlmZiAtcSAiJGN1cnJlbnQiICIkdXBkYXRlZCIKZGlmZiAtLWdpdCBh L2dlbmVyYXRlX3BvdC5zaCBiL2dlbmVyYXRlX3BvdC5zaAppbmRleCA4ZjdkZjQ3Li45OGNmNGQ2 IDEwMDc1NQotLS0gYS9nZW5lcmF0ZV9wb3Quc2gKKysrIGIvZ2VuZXJhdGVfcG90LnNoCkBAIC0x NSw0NCArMTUsMjQgQEAKICMgd2hlbiB0aGV5IGhhdmUgYmVlbiB0b3VjaGVkIGJ5IGEgdHJhbnNs YXRvci4KIAogIyBEZWZpbmUgZmlsZSBuYW1lcwotSEVBREVSX0ZJTEU9InBvL2hlYWRlci5wb3Qi Ci1URU1QX0ZJTEU9InBvL3RlbXAucG90IgotUE9UX0ZJTEU9InBvL2FkZHVzZXIucG90IgorUE9U X0ZJTEU9JHtQT1RfRklMRTotInBvL2FkZHVzZXIucG90In0KIFNPVVJDRV9GSUxFUz0iYWRkdXNl ciBkZWx1c2VyICoucG0iCiAKLSMgQ3JlYXRlIGEgY3VzdG9tIGhlYWRlciBmaWxlIGlmIGl0IGRv ZXNuJ3QgZXhpc3QKLWlmIFsgISAtZiAiJHtIRUFERVJfRklMRX0iIF07IHRoZW4KLSAgICBjYXQg PDxFT0wgPiAiJHtIRUFERVJfRklMRX0iCi0jIGFkZHVzZXIgcHJvZ3JhbSB0cmFuc2xhdGlvbgot IyBDb3B5cmlnaHQgKEMpIChpbnNlcnQgeWVhciBhbmQgYXV0aG9yIGhlcmUpCi0jIFRoaXMgZmls ZSBpcyBkaXN0cmlidXRlZCB1bmRlciB0aGUgc2FtZSBsaWNlbnNlIGFzIHRoZSBhZGR1c2VyIHBh Y2thZ2UuCi0jIEZJUlNUIEFVVEhPUiA8RU1BSUxAQUREUkVTUz4sIFlFQVIuCi0jCi1tc2dpZCAi IgotbXNnc3RyICIiCi0iUHJvamVjdC1JZC1WZXJzaW9uOiBhZGR1c2VyICQoZHBrZy1wYXJzZWNo YW5nZWxvZyAtLXNob3ctZmllbGQgVmVyc2lvbilcbiIKLSJSZXBvcnQtTXNnaWQtQnVncy1Ubzog YWRkdXNlckBwYWNrYWdlcy5kZWJpYW4ub3JnXG4iCi0iUE9ULUNyZWF0aW9uLURhdGU6ICQoZGF0 ZSArIiVZLSVtLSVkICVIOiVNJXoiKVxuIgotIlBPLVJldmlzaW9uLURhdGU6IFlFQVItTU8tREEg SE86TUkrWk9ORVxuIgotIkxhc3QtVHJhbnNsYXRvcjogWW91ciBOYW1lIDx5b3VyLmVtYWlsQGV4 YW1wbGUuY29tPlxuIgotIkxhbmd1YWdlLVRlYW06IE15UHJvamVjdCBUZWFtIDx0ZWFtQGV4YW1w bGUuY29tPlxuIgotIkNvbnRlbnQtVHlwZTogdGV4dC9wbGFpbjsgY2hhcnNldD1VVEYtOFxuIgot IkNvbnRlbnQtVHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6IDhiaXRcbiIKLSJQbHVyYWwtRm9ybXM6IG5wbHVy YWxzPTI7IHBsdXJhbD0obiAhPSAxKTtcbiIKLUVPTAotZmkKLQotIyBFeHRyYWN0IHN0cmluZ3Mg d2l0aG91dCBnZW5lcmF0aW5nIGEgZGVmYXVsdCBoZWFkZXIKLXhnZXR0ZXh0IC0ta2V5d29yZD1t dHggLS1rZXl3b3JkPWd0eCAtLW9taXQtaGVhZGVyIC1vICIke1RFTVBfRklMRX0iIC0tZnJvbS1j b2RlPVVURi04IC1MICR7U09VUkNFX0ZJTEVTfQotCi0jIE1lcmdlIGN1c3RvbSBoZWFkZXIgYW5k IGV4dHJhY3RlZCBzdHJpbmdzCi1jYXQgIiR7SEVBREVSX0ZJTEV9IiAiJHtURU1QX0ZJTEV9IiA+ ICIke1BPVF9GSUxFfSIKKyMgRXh0cmFjdCBzdHJpbmdzIGFuZCBnZW5lcmF0ZSBQT1QgZmlsZQor eGdldHRleHQgXAorICAgIC0ta2V5d29yZD1tdHggLS1rZXl3b3JkPWd0eCAtLWZyb20tY29kZT1V VEYtOCAtTCBwZXJsIFwKKyAgICAtLXBhY2thZ2UtbmFtZT1hZGR1c2VyIC0tcGFja2FnZS12ZXJz aW9uPSQoZHBrZy1wYXJzZWNoYW5nZWxvZyAtLXNob3ctZmllbGQgVmVyc2lvbikgLS1tc2dpZC1i dWdzLWFkZHJlc3M9YWRkdXNlckBwYWNrYWdlcy5kZWJpYW4ub3JnIFwKKyAgICAtbyAiJHtQT1Rf RklMRX0iICR7U09VUkNFX0ZJTEVTfQorIyBSZXBsYWNlIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBsaW5lIHdpdGggYW4g YWN0dWFsbHkgdXNlZnVsIGRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHRlbXBsYXRlCitzZWQgLWkgIjFzLy4qLyMgVHJh bnNsYXRpb24gb2YgYWRkdXNlciBwcm9ncmFtIGludG8gTEFOR1VBR0UvIiAiJHtQT1RfRklMRX0i CiAKICMgQ2xlYW4gdXAgdGVtcG9yYXJ5IGZpbGUKIHJtICIke1RFTVBfRklMRX0iICIke0hFQURF Ul9GSUxFfSIKIAogZWNobyAiUE9UIGZpbGUgZ2VuZXJhdGVkOiAke1BPVF9GSUxFfSIKIAorWyAi JEdFTkVSQVRFX1BPIiA9PSAwIF0gJiYgZXhpdDsKKwogIyBMb29wIHRocm91Z2ggYWxsIC5wbyBm aWxlcyBpbiB0aGUgbG9jYWxlIGRpcmVjdG9yeQogZm9yIFBPX0ZJTEUgaW4gcG8vKi5wbzsgZG8K ICAgICBpZiBbIC1mICIke1BPX0ZJTEV9IiBdOyB0aGVuCi0tIAoyLjQ4LjAucmMxLjIxOS5nYjZi Njc1N2Q3NzIKCg==


--=-sZnCRR4pFHcyyUcG4gw0--

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEESl/RzRFQh8wD3DXB1ZeJcgbF8H8FAmfRFkMACgkQ1ZeJcgbF 8H/y6hAAgjUjWV3EeFrFat6jZRAsY5ahUQuBh4vp3/yMfc2jbeNYYV0AcHI6Sk5W g+fbgF4NiC2pDM59VrYvJ6C6nCerpWhHJJxn6AqAxrINOtwJnE+NEv7YgE3WoofA 3QiRlC1hwcE29No3i6gPAJjUuwDyI3tfY2nFqcfVxhI2U+GNA8oUsfZ6WvYn7NVz c8kVwVpUg7KHUbqmDSKDdy5QMNstQurfGJRI4vmHil2vKnr2wDnDrxJ8Qj3QsfBv 5Qpwz3lihxEuXttpDPExS08SLzeLaw+6Ay2D972iLDX+L2bimAMP7dwvipmAxwqA D0SNkdGim9KY7U3VYKyWHr6eB45Sx/Qq9dwfbCkECUI7HDy3xqKfJzgpYsHiR6Y3 plKxINb0UZmmD/4gsCw8JDz9TG0jQFg1NbiH+iTSCjC1HdB2S8qavX+uOuUiCXGE BcAJvlxKLBP1E/j0+UmC6KWUuPtcB/LcUSpolR1H1Ud1LF4Wv66cTt63yrZ+x6Ac GrIgl0F5p0dlYYvT9mdaho6WVGqpn3eFkSjkDWl8bvkNSQOnHzK9Xwhzbkl6hoL+ icyAoF6SwVuFHIW9iQ7F6BeGJHgrfuj7m2j+rO09nK1QdoYQVHMhkD0UbmQUlEb5 rx45rUi31gIcOkqlgBppKJZpYyLqlJhT9rm37l53r89rYLuUty8=
=Hu1V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Dirk,

Le 2025-03-12 03:03, Dirk Lehmann a écrit :

As I understand your question about a general workflow of translations
in all your email-cases correct, I think the short answer maybe to use `quilt` to patch the .PO files instead of committing them directly via
Git. Also consider `gbp-pq`, could be useful, but not sure.

Thank you for the time you took to write this reply. However Mark did
not explicitly mention that fact, but he was talking about the `adduser` package which is a (Debian) native package, which means there is no
further "upstream" and thus there is no reason to use quilt and patch
queues in this case (that would only further complicate things).

Cheers,

--
Julien Plissonneau Duquène

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:35:16AM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: >Le 2025-03-12 03:03, Dirk Lehmann a écrit :

As I understand your question about a general workflow of translations
in all your email-cases correct, I think the short answer maybe to use >>`quilt` to patch the .PO files instead of committing them directly via
Git. Also consider `gbp-pq`, could be useful, but not sure.

Thank you for the time you took to write this reply. However Mark did
not explicitly mention that fact, but he was talking about the
`adduser` package which is a (Debian) native package, which means
there is no further "upstream" and thus there is no reason to use
quilt and patch queues in this case (that would only further
complicate things).

Thank you for setting this straight. In fact, when I receive updated
message texts or translations for programs that have an active upstream
(such as sudo), I usually encourage the translator to send the
translation upstream so that all users of this program benefit from the improved translation. In rare cases, I do the forwarding myself, but I
would never^wthink three times before patching an upstraem translation
in the Debian source.

Greetings
Marc

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 10:10:51PM +0900, Simon Richter wrote:

I'm on mobile, so only a quick reply: merging should be done with
msgmerge as well — you need to call it twice, once with the po files
from both branches, and once again with the pot file to fix all the
location comments and fuzzy flags.

That sounds really interesting. Did anybody include this in git like for
the excellent dpkg-mergechangelogs, so that it can be done
automatically?

If doing that automatically doesn't work, I would love to see a
complete usecase.

Alternatively, you can define a filter in git to remove(!) locations on >checkout and restore them from the pot file on commit, that solves the >majority of conflicts.

How would that look like? git filters are a mystery for those wizards.

Greetings
Marc


-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:36:27AM +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène wrote: >Le 2025-03-11 12:03, Marc Haber a écrit :

(2)
There is some point in the development process when it is time to ask
for translations. Translators need a POT file which contains all the >>translatable strings, and they make a PO file from that which contains
the actual translation.

That's for the initial translation. Once there is a .po they will
update it directly and don't need or use the .pot anymore.

So all love I put into the POTs header will go unnoticed and I'll need
to pay attention to individual translations' header until somebody else
cares.

(4)
Then,
msgmerge --update --backup=none --no-fuzzy-matching "${PO_FILE}" >>"${POT_FILE}"
is called for every existing PO file. This doesn't move the header from
the POT file to the existing PO file so stupidities like "# COPYRIGHT
THE PACKAGE CREATOR" just never get fixed because the translators don't >>seem to care.

I'm not sure the --no-fuzzy-matching helps here (see below).

Since --no-fuzzy-matching is just superficially documented, ...

Also I
note that msgmerge is not used at all in devscripts packaging, which
only uses po4a instead. Maybe you could look there if it could help
your case.

po4a seems to try to do those things automatically, using msgmerge as a subprocess.

In a few cases there is spurious "fuzzing", e.g. when the source
message uses `...' for quoting where it shoud have been using \"...\".
In some of these cases it may be possible to fix the issue in the
source message, but I believe other cases are actually bugs in
msgmerge. Are these what your translators are asking you to deal with?

Not directly the translators, but many years ago somebody who helped me
with making a package fit for translation mentioned that such changes
are unfriendly to translators and that one should handle those manually
and unfuzz things (in a manual process that seemed clumsy and
error-prone to me even back then).

On a merge request I would just post comments to ask the translator to
fix the headers metadata and licensing, but may still deal with >normalizing/rewrapping myself (e.g. by adding a commit to the MR where >possible). If this were exchanged over e-mail I would probably fix
most trivial things myself.

So you're saying that as package maintainer I can freely edit headers
and metadata for translations, putting the PO file into a mixed domain
between package maintainer and the respective translator?

² adduser has strings that get used in both translated and untranslated >>form, making sure that messages written to the console are translated
and messages written to syslog are written in English to make handling
bug repors easier

The "industrial" way to deal with in other (usually large) projects is
to pre/postfix all source log messages with a unique identifier e.g. >"(ADDUSER-1234)". This makes it possible to have tech-support-friendly
and end-user-friendly translated log messages, and as an added benefit
it has excellent SEO characteristics when it comes to searching for >workarounds on the web or in a knowledge base.

Yes, I'd rather not do that because my inner monk would first cause me
spending a few days to catalogize and abstract adduser's messages. Time
that I'd rahter not spend at the moment.

³ I have received translations that were obviously done against the POT >>file from stable.

That's a start, I guess. Maybe in these cases you can keep the .po
file as submitted for proposed updates, merge it in unstable and
nicely ask the translator to also please work on the upcoming version.

But translating a stable package does show a blatant non-understanding
of Debian's development mechanisms! How am I supposed to trust people
who care THIS little about the project they're contributing to?

Greetings
Marc

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 01:06:11PM +0800, Maytham Alsudany wrote:

It might also be worthwhile to forward your message to
debian-i18n@l.d.o, since translators and i18n people are more likely to
be subscribed there and less likely to be subscribed here.

I didn't do that on purpose because the documentation of i18n shows that
the people who are currently writing those docs don't care too much
about actually building packages. I might ask them to review my wiki
page once it is finished.

xgettext comes with a ton of options to help you. Have a look at the
diff I've attached for what I've been able to do.

Will do and take your suggestions. But it is still a wrapper needed.

Note that you shouldn't define the plural stuff in the POT file, that's >something that's set on a per-language basis. There should also be a
newline between the header and first message block.

Noted.

I have seen this being done in debian/rules' clean target which, in
in-tree builds, causes the POT file to be changed as well and I don't
understand at which step of the packaging process it would be a good
idea to commit that POT file. If I build my package out of tree (like I
do out of tradition of svn-buildpackage, I have gbp configured to use
../build-area), the POT file ends up newly generated in the source
package but never gets updated in git. Adduser had POT files from 2022
in git until just recently because I just never noticed. There is no
lintian check and no check inside tracker.d.o for this.

In other packages, there is a dedicated m4 macro to call xgettext which
doesn't make things easier to understand.

Usually, all this stuff with generating and updating POT & PO files is >upstream's responsibility to deal with, hence why you'll find little >documentation for translating anything other than debconf templates.

The mechanism and the pain seems similar to identical. Text => POT =>
PO.

Since this
is a native package, it's up to you to do what you want. My suggestion is to >run this script before release; the most important thing is that it is run >after the program's messages are updated and _finalised_, and before sending it
to translators.

Is it really the right thing to do that in debian/rules clean target? I
don't expect anything to change during that step that I am supposed to
commit, and it does it step in a place that is discarded after build
when doing an out of tree build.

I think that _this_ philosophy belongs in debian-devel, and I am quite surprised that noone has an opinion about that.

(4)
Then,
msgmerge --update --backup=none --no-fuzzy-matching "${PO_FILE}" "${POT_FILE}"
is called for every existing PO file. This doesn't move the header from
the POT file to the existing PO file so stupidities like "# COPYRIGHT
THE PACKAGE CREATOR" just never get fixed because the translators don't
seem to care.

The header is only touched when the translation is initially created.

I am not sure whether this is good.

I've rarely seen anyone being condemned for fuzzy translations (but then >again, I work in a language team that has virtually no members).

That was an exaggeration. But I have experienced an instance where
somebody helping me called it "unfriendly" to not manually unfuzzy all translations after fixing a punctuation issue.

In which stage of package build do I do
msgmerge? Do I commit the merged po files, when do I commit them, what
do I do with them during git merge when a feature branch is merged?

In your position, I would leave the translations and the POT file
untouched on the feature branch, and only ever update them on the main
branch after merging.

That doesn't happen when you work on a feature branch and do in-tree
builds. One would have to be careful to NOT commit those changed files,
and people routinely using git add -a (not me) are going to have commits
of relevant changes to their code/packaging and irrelevant changes to
POT/PO files in the same commit.

Yes, in theory, but it's still helpful to attach it for a variety of
reasons e.g. the existing translation is an old garbled mess and
starting new is the best option.

So podebconf-report-po should have an option to include the POT file
even when asking for individual translations?

(6)
Depending on the age of the existing translations, about half of the
messages I send to individual translators are going to bounce. Am I
supposed to report that to debian-i18n@l.d.o as a followup to the
general translation request so that new translators can take up the
outdated translatorless translations? Or am I supposed to send the
general translation request to debian-i18n last so that I can explicitly
mention the translatorless languages there?

According to the manual page (and from what I've seen on >debian-l10n-ar@l.d.o), the language team listed in the PO file (which
should _always_ be debian-l10n-LANG@l.d.o) is Cc'ed by default, so they
will deal with inactive translators. Anyone working on translations
should be subscribed to the list for the relevant language, so it'll be >picked up. You don't need to do anything extra.

There are languages that don't use the debian-l10n-LANG mailing list (or
the translator didn't care to put in the correct Team address). I am
seeig this for Danish, Basque, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian Bokmal,
Portuguese, Brazilian Portuguese, Slovakian, Ukrainian, and Simplified
Chinese.

Am I supposed to fix those headers in the po file myself? Am I supposed
to ask the translator to fix the headers? Or am I supposed to just
ignore all of that and just accept whatever I get sent? I often feel
like a smart-mouthed know-it-all when I ask a translator to improve the
headers of their PO file.

What you do is up to you. Translation headers are annoyingly
inconsistent from a QA perspective, so don't feel bad for asking
translators to fix headers (or fix them yourself if it's easy enough).
I've had to do this for when I recieved translations for miniflux's
debconf templates.

So it is okay to fix headers in translations?

Sadly, I have some translations that have things like "Copyright SPI" or "Copyright FSF" in their header, and _that_ is not easily removed.

(9)
I then commit the po file the translator sent me to version control

(10)
And then I eventually release the package.

In theory, it would probably be good to do all that regeneration when
preparing a package for release. Why don't we have a debian/rules target
like debian/rules prepare-release that might be useful for that? How
could we protect us against uploading a package with outdated POT/PO
files? People make mistakes.

I've attached a rough check script in the same diff that tells you if
you're POT is outdated, based on exit code. You could use this in a >pre-commit hook or somewhere in d/rules to fail the build (like >execute_before_dh_auto_configure).

Sounds good. But, how does the build process distinguish whether I am
building for testing, on a feature branch, or for a release? That all
ends up with a human having to remember what to do when building for a
upload.

How am I supposed to handle the unavoidable differences between git
branches, that are probably easier to solve when I am just merging a
feature branch but can be a major pain when merging suite branches like
experimental, stable, unstable where translation work has already been
done?

Wouldn't an "theirs" merge strategy for only the translations work?
During a merge conflict, you can use `git checkout --theirs -- po/`, or
use .gitattributes with `po/* merge=theirs` (I haven't tried this).
This way new translations from, for instance, debian/experimental, will >replace the old ones in debian/unstable.

Merge strategies are a mystery to me, worsened by the fact that they
work a bit (but not completely) the other way arouse when rebasing.

But honestly, if some changes are in debian/experimental or in a feature >branch, the translations should really be left alone, since noone will
use it anyway and the package is prone to further changes.

I'd love to have automated tool support for that.

Thanks for reading up to this point. Writing this message alone has cost
me three hours of my time that I'd rather have put in productive
packaging work, and a sleepless night. You know, when I blow a fuse, I
rant, and then I start writing docs. I guess when I put the result of
this discussion in a wiki page, it should be under i18n, right? I am
inclined to put on https://wiki.debian.org/I18n a dedicated chapter
titled "for package maintainers", probably between "Keyboard input
infrastructure support" and "Meetings" as this is a matter beyond
interna of the translation teams and the i18n effort. Am I on the
correct track with that?

IMO this information should probably go on i18n.d.o.

That page only has a list of languages and links to the respective
coordination pages. And it also links to wiki.d.o/I18n, and that is a
page that I can change.

If you don't want to deal with translation stuff, I'm happy to help with
that aspect, and if you'd like you can offload that on me.

Thank you for that offer. I need to understand things to be comfortable
with tem. I think I am on a good way.

Greetings
Marc

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.i18n

tl;dr: New Wiki Page https://wiki.debian.org/I18n/ForPackageMaintainers,
please review

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:03:51PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

Whenever I am angry about something in Debian, I start writing docs. So
I try this here, but here I don't know enough to be really helpful. I
hope that this rant will start a positive discussion with actual results
that I could pour into a Wiki page that might actually help with the
pain I am feeling, assuming that many other maintainers feel as well.

Sadly, the disusscion didn't really get traction. But there was
valueable advice given. You can read up about this in the archive,
beginning with my rant, https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/03/msg00337.html

I have put my knowledge and the result of this discussion in a wiki
page, https://wiki.debian.org/I18n/ForPackageMaintainers and have also
taken the liberty of putting a link in a prominent place of https://wiki.debian.org/I18n

I hope this might be helpful to package maintainers in the presence of
the majority of docs that is mainly targeted at translations.

Sadly, I haven't fond a comfortable solution about handling merge and
rebase conflicts in POT and PO files. Additionally, I think that the
widely common practice of creating/updating POT and PO files in the debian/rules clean target is somewhere between suboptimal and wrong.

I would like you people, especially you on debian-i18n¹, to review the
wiki page and give feedback (resp. direct edit the page) to make it the authoritative documentation for package maintiners.

Thanks for helping!

Greetings
Marc

¹ I initially left out debian-i18n deliberately because I think that the target audience is more on debian-devel, but since there are people who
think that debian-i18n can help her as well I am Ccing this to
debian-i18n. Reply-To is set to debian-devel though, feel free to ignore.
I am reading both lists.

-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:46:32 +0100, Julien Plissonneau Duquène <sre4ever@free.fr> wrote:

Don't take it personally: as an established maintainer
of i18nized software did you know about this process?

No, I didn't. I am arrogant enough to expect that relevant docs are
easy to find and in English. I had four years of French in high
school, in practice that is barely enough to navigate public transport
in Paris. When I try to speak French, every second word is English and
the Grammar anyway.

Oh, my, am I going to have fun in Brest?

Greetings
Marc
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le 2025-03-18 18:19, Marc Haber a écrit :

In a few cases there is spurious "fuzzing", e.g. when the source
message uses `...' for quoting where it shoud have been using \"...\".
In some of these cases it may be possible to fix the issue in the
source message, but I believe other cases are actually bugs in
msgmerge. Are these what your translators are asking you to deal with?

Not directly the translators, but many years ago somebody who helped me
with making a package fit for translation mentioned that such changes
are unfriendly to translators and that one should handle those manually
and unfuzz things (in a manual process that seemed clumsy and
error-prone to me even back then).

It's hard to tell if this advice is still relevant without more details,
but IMO expecting the maintainers to unfuzz translations themselves is
not a sound workflow, especially if that has to be done manually.

On a merge request I would just post comments to ask the translator to
fix the headers metadata and licensing, but may still deal with
normalizing/rewrapping myself (e.g. by adding a commit to the MR where
possible). If this were exchanged over e-mail I would probably fix
most trivial things myself.

So you're saying that as package maintainer I can freely edit headers
and metadata for translations, putting the PO file into a mixed domain between package maintainer and the respective translator?

Yes. They hand you the manuscript but you are the editor and printer.
Header and metadata changes where the translator is not expected to have
any reason to disagree with your changes are fine. You may also tell the translator that you are going to do these changes and give them a few
days to react, to be nicer.

³ I have received translations that were obviously done against the
POT
file from stable.

That's a start, I guess. Maybe in these cases you can keep the .po
file as submitted for proposed updates, merge it in unstable and
nicely ask the translator to also please work on the upcoming version.

But translating a stable package does show a blatant non-understanding
of Debian's development mechanisms! How am I supposed to trust people
who care THIS little about the project they're contributing to?

It's not necessarily that they care little, more probably they don't
have enough experience with software development or even engineering in
general and don't realize the extent of established processes that could
be in place, so they don't even search for them, or if they do they
don't know what to look for and where.

There is actually a fairly elaborate translation workflow, apparently
followed by most translation teams but AFAICT only fully documented here
[1] (that is, in french) and more specifically here [2] for Debian
native software. Don't take it personally: as an established maintainer
of i18nized software did you know about this process? Is there a page in english or in translator's language you could refer them to so you could
kindly ask them to have their work reviewed and proofread as part of the process (as you can't yourself check that there isn't, for example, inappropriate language in the submitted translation), even though they
missed the initial steps?

Cheers,


[1]: https://www.debian.org/international/french/
[2]: https://www.debian.org/international/french/po

--
Julien Plissonneau Duquène

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 09:06:35PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:

xgettext comes with a ton of options to help you. Have a look at the
diff I've attached for what I've been able to do.

Will do and take your suggestions. But it is still a wrapper needed.

I have put this into the adduser wrapper and extended it. I also have
filed https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/index.php?66933 against upstream
gettext to introduce a --pot-title and --content-charset option.

I would like to hear opinions about translation copyright. xgettext
generates a single copyright line to be filled in after pot generation.
But technically, the strings pulled into the potfile fall under the
copyright of the program authors (potentially all of them) as they are
pulled from the actual source code. xgettext would have to have an
option to pull in the possibly multi-line copyright string from a file
since noone would like to give tens of copyright holders on the xgettext command line. Then, the translators would have to add themselves to the
POT file.

In addition the # FIRST AUTHOR <EMAIL@ADDRESS>, YEAR header generated
by xgettext seems redundant.

It looks to me like the comment headers generated by xgettext are not
very well thought out and impractical for software that has grown over
the years.

Am I exaggerating?

Greetings
Marc


-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.i18n

This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages.

Hello Marc,
Am Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:44:47AM +0100 schrieb Marc Haber:

tl;dr: New Wiki Page https://wiki.debian.org/I18n/ForPackageMaintainers, please review

I just did it. I usually updated it right away, but at one or two
points it is more like a discussion. And due to my changes some
redundancy is included, but I think this is more helpful during
development, you can streamline it of course in the next step(s).

If you have any questions on my changes it is probably best to discuss
this on list. Please keep me (or -i18n) in CC, as I'm not subscribed
to -devel.

Thanks.

Greetings

Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann debian@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/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEbZZfteMW0gNUynuwQbqlJmgq5nAFAmffAlQACgkQQbqlJmgq 5nCcNw/8DsTxALCE7UhUZie5fy/lJVy+veS1KD4SMvNqPSQqnqR23Ge67cXsMQBk HyFwde04wRfrXQiSE6vdHlRkrokKb4COkm9sgT3A7XIp4lkiJ6jANUwmNZJru2iV 2wP4f7z+Iu5pnnC0r/+8RJsMYHMfIDWbQh8WBm6CxDfb0JeD2h5HOwVBEdlzfpx1 B3dRtZbbVhEH++lgZNjb3TBjb5oyxtjhoFaE29ixnySdb6exOWssGnbdfpS8gWWl wLpO7LaL8jI3TzKct6s3csDfrnCDPxGdH1wKAcpQFjbIub24cwxi0M44cHKMbDpD L+gYkir3GfxK7XE3sPxlFfXiZuQEK+E4ZOtAv4oXJegcnRiz58iBC9eTLD70iY6C +GFT3HUy3Qv7YBV4a5OF/JpFNO8JLWuRIuNXd+DeZnW3pw9di3Yrh46AYH9j7QZh aUFvOUMadQ6fiiIWADMgmtnpTv+MXJTaB7lAd2fdZ8aXJBg4AZhfsZlYCnAa2wbK p0qcye9/ZxtszveYZrs8YfYnstcaulsiBSlcrK9bgnBUJ63TfvmHwtzf0TVTj8ud 8XHF2UK5Qc3wkl5hmpTGgzy9dy3nYaah4P4x6dU

XPost: linux.debian.maint.i18n

On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 06:32:54PM +0000, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:

Am Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:44:47AM +0100 schrieb Marc Haber:

tl;dr: New Wiki Page https://wiki.debian.org/I18n/ForPackageMaintainers,
please review

I just did it. I usually updated it right away, but at one or two
points it is more like a discussion. And due to my changes some
redundancy is included, but I think this is more helpful during
development, you can streamline it of course in the next step(s).

I appreciate your help. Thank you very much.

If you have any questions on my changes it is probably best to discuss
this on list. Please keep me (or -i18n) in CC, as I'm not subscribed
to -devel.

I think the only matter that needs discussion is whether and when to
commit updated PO files:

Me:
It is currently not clear how to make sure that a package maintainer
does not forget these updates without creating lots of useless commits
with new PO files that only differ in line number and date stamp
comments.

You:
Using no line numbers reduced this problem. Updated time stamps are no
worry for translators (they seldomly look at them). And they do not care
for commits - they look at master or similar or on the web pages
mentioned above and take what they find. So the most important part is
to keep this current. If you need this for your VCS, you can add code in
your build system to discard po(t) file updates which only change in the
date stamp.

My questions:
"Using no line numbers" => invoke msgmerge with --no-location?
"Web pages mentioned above" => I don't see web pages being mentioned.
That needs a name or a link
"Add code in your build system to discard po(t) that only change in the
date stamp" => that would mak ethe source package and the tag in the VCS diverge. I don't like that at all.

Greetings
Marc


-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.i18n

This is a MIME-formatted message. If you see this text it means that your E-mail software does not support MIME-formatted messages.

Hello Marc,
Am Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 05:49:40PM +0100 schrieb Marc Haber:

On Sat, Mar 22, 2025 at 06:32:54PM +0000, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:

Am Wed, Mar 19, 2025 at 09:44:47AM +0100 schrieb Marc Haber:
If you have any questions on my changes it is probably best to discuss
this on list. Please keep me (or -i18n) in CC, as I'm not subscribed
to -devel.

I think the only matter that needs discussion is whether and when to commit updated PO files:

Me:
It is currently not clear how to make sure that a package maintainer does
not forget these updates without creating lots of useless commits with new
PO files that only differ in line number and date stamp comments.

You:
Using no line numbers reduced this problem. Updated time stamps are no worry for translators (they seldomly look at them). And they do not care for commits - they look at master or similar or on the web pages mentioned above and take what they find. So the most important part is to keep this current. If you need this for your VCS, you can add code in your build system to discard po(t) file updates which only change in the date stamp.

My questions:
"Using no line numbers" => invoke msgmerge with --no-location?

Yes.

"Web pages mentioned above" => I don't see web pages being mentioned. That needs a name or a link

I meant the references to the Debian status pages, the link I inserted
further above: https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/

Please reword this to make it more clear.

"Add code in your build system to discard po(t) that only change in the date stamp" => that would mak ethe source package and the tag in the VCS diverge. I don't like that at all.

This I don't understand.

At some stage you update the POT files. Then you run a (git) commit,
to place the updated files in your repository.

In manpages-l10n Tobias added code to detect, if only the time stamp
changed. If so, the time stamp is reverted to the previous value, and
a "git commit" is a noop. Then also the po files are left alone.

This "only" saves you a commit in this corner case.

It is not meant to diverge version, because in the end the po(t) files
in your package should match the po(t) files in the repository.

Greetings

Helge

--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann debian@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/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEbZZfteMW0gNUynuwQbqlJmgq5nAFAmfhpWkACgkQQbqlJmgq 5nBihBAAjbkSq4Q6RdtX2o2e/I92Jv+W3xK8tSMgj+qJTekPsmDJsGZYK1ArLNdr H243wgIg4WVbxCHaOlLb8HGtkJOrCCV5dbioMmFz4Rx6CPTeTloG427k3OzYvRea 18eC8Aar3BrsTBMq7Sq1t36g76trc8RJStJBmWarBeoDT93nt4MYj2pqT9dsuKYD nkiChxrZNi3FcKYa102OwtirHzh9lYXFSV4OG5NoIkSynf9Yv9EhCt61sEAsecdT INdcnpTcNNQgTLgG0b7BYGl2bkdv3gc8L9FSyjCLewyQ234O6i/lTRbjZavFLy0S W5KpKjSH+MWViAoI4aq2vu0W1GrBYrvU4UlQ8YZXMJPw2LcM9E+Y21gN0fCZZhDC 81m2GRjIay5xJY5cvRraqMRa4cn5Un1AGFsi68c+8fVoipicnQEmLBo3Gyo1pz0V ycEjCsJ2StcUxpjt20wJvwmXjpXOXblji5zrLRu+g2gyETS9w5MCKY0dsDkRrfHz RX8o3lJ4FnJM/aLz6gUcZb88jQZXznpCfFnvcnmdnSJLrGuYQHom+zH9OMpkYXGn /rSOSHUrcugLW0qaoDwDcuYz27ky+lZHiag5tDF

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 15:05:56 +0100, Dirk Lehmann <debian@dj-l.de>
wrote:

I have a bit played around with `msgmerge` and found a way to display
a `diff` which contains the translations which will be destroyed if
you merge a .po file from a translator

* test-de_DE-transl.po

into your maintained one

* test-de_DE.po

in conjunction with the current generated .pot file

* test.pot

The essential code snippet looks like this

**********************************************************************
*
* msgmerge -q -C test-de_DE-transl.po test-de_DE.po test.pot \
* > test-de_DE-maint+transl.po
* msgmerge -vv -q -C test-de_DE.po test-de_DE-transl.po test.pot \
* > test-de_DE-transl+maint.po
*
* # Print out the new merged .po file
* cat test-de_DE-transl+maint.po
*
* # Show the diff of destroyed translations (including comments)
* diff -u test-de_DE-maint+transl.po test-de_DE-transl+maint.po
*
**********************************************************************

I think this is way beyond what we could expact from J Random Package Maintainer, unless it is fully automated and can be documented and
packaged.

Greetings
Marc
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: linux.debian.maint.i18n

On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 06:33:19PM +0000, Helge Kreutzmann wrote:

Am Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 05:49:40PM +0100 schrieb Marc Haber:

"Using no line numbers" => invoke msgmerge with --no-location?

Yes.

"Web pages mentioned above" => I don't see web pages being mentioned. That >> needs a name or a link

I meant the references to the Debian status pages, the link I inserted >further above: https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/

Please reword this to make it more clear.

Done.

"Add code in your build system to discard po(t) that only change in the date >> stamp" => that would mak ethe source package and the tag in the VCS diverge. >> I don't like that at all.

This I don't understand.

At some stage you update the POT files. Then you run a (git) commit,
to place the updated files in your repository.

Yes, this should be a manual process, in my opinion.

In manpages-l10n Tobias added code to detect, if only the time stamp
changed. If so, the time stamp is reverted to the previous value, and
a "git commit" is a noop. Then also the po files are left alone.

That should be a feature of xgettext or the other tools that might write
the POT files: Don't regenerate the file if the only change is the time
stamp. Since xgettext is unlikely to change¹

This "only" saves you a commit in this corner case.

It is not meant to diverge version, because in the end the po(t) files
in your package should match the po(t) files in the repository.

The problem ist when POT and PO files are regenerated (and actually
change) in package build when you're doing an out-of-tree build.

For example, I have export-dir=../build-area set in my gbp.conf. When
building a package, gbp copies the current working copy (or exports the requested branch) to a temporary directory under ../build-area/ and does
the actual build from there. The temporary build directory is then
discarded, leaving the current working copy unchanged. When the build
process regenerates POT and PO files, those changes never find their way
back into your working copy, making the source package and the VCS
diverge.

That's why I believe that any point in the package build is the wrong
place to regenerate PO and POT files. Either that, or we need to
strongly discourage doing out-of-tree builds.

Greetings
Marc

¹ I tried to put some of the ideas that this discussion brought into
xgettext / msgmerge bugs and they got rejected upstream quite quickly. I
will refrain from wasting my time in this regard in the future.


-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Leimen, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 6224 1600402 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 6224 1600421

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:03:51PM +0100, Marc Haber a écrit :

tl;dr: We need more docs about best practices to handle translations as
a package maintainer

I would suggest you find someone on debian-i18n willing to handle translations for
adduser for you and give them commit access.
That is how popularity-translation translation have been handled for a long time
(thanks, Christian Perrier, I learned everything about translations
handling this way!)

Cheers,
Bill.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 21:26:05 +0000, Bill Allombert
<ballombe@debian.org> wrote:

Le Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 12:03:51PM +0100, Marc Haber a écrit :

tl;dr: We need more docs about best practices to handle translations as
a package maintainer

I would suggest you find someone on debian-i18n willing to handle translations for
adduser for you and give them commit access.

That's how I tried, that just ended up in more chaos, leading up to my
fuse blowing and trying to understand what happens.

That is how popularity-translation translation have been handled for a long time
(thanks, Christian Perrier, I learned everything about translations
handling this way!)

It should stil be documented for mortals to understand.

Greetings
Marc
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)