On Thu, Sep 06, 2001 at 01:07:40AM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > The description is part of the package, can we agree on that one? > > What is the difference between a translated description and the > > original one, except for which language it is written in?
The original, canonical, description is part of the package, and a necessary part at that. Others aren't. They're just different representations of the original one, and don't *need* to be provided by the maintainer. If the maintainer chooses to provide, obtain, manage translations, fine. If not, also fine. The translations are not a necessary part of the package, they are related to it, and could be provided however is most convenient for the situation at hand - not necessarily in one big lump. > Well, all descriptions are in english by default and there is no real reason > to store every description for every package on every machine/archive. Exactly. > > The package is the responsibility of the maintainer, and s/he has the > > final words on all aspects of how it should be packaged (subject to > > policy, of course). To me, it looks like you want this changed, which > > I think is a bad idea. > > But then the maintainer has to take full responsibility to maintain the > translations. And several maintainers have said they don't even want to know > about new translations since they can be added without any action on their > part. Exactly again. If translations are available both from the maintainer and from a separate translation archive, it should be up to the user to decide which they want to use. That would allow for all sorts of flexibility - as I said before, you could even have different "translations" in the same language. I can think of at least one way in which this could be useful. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone whom you reject today, will reject you tomorrow.
