On 29-Aug-01, 21:49 (CDT), Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>"Steve" == Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I maintain kernel-package. I have no idea what it takes to > maintain kernel image packages for i386, much less for other > archs. But I also have people who do, and who help me put together a > working kernel-package package. > > Linus himself admits he just works with 5% of kernel code; he > has delegated trust and responsibility.
He has delegated trust to those who have demonstrated such responsibility, by evaluating their work. I am quite willing to let a group manage translations; that's what I want. My point, which people seem to keep ignoring, is that I *personally* have no way of judging the quality of a translation. Therefore, I cannot take responsibility for including random translation submissions into my package. > > These are my packages. I am responsible. Mine! Mine! all > Mine! is a bad way to think of your relationship to your packages. Maybe I communicate badly, but that is not at all what I said. Would you include arbitrary MIPS assembly code patches into your packages? And in fact, I have a better chance of correctly decoding arbitrary assembly code than, say, Mandarin. Or Greek. I'm happy to accept and consider patches to my packages. But if I just incorporated them with checking, you, Manoj, would be first in line to criticize me. And you'd be completely justified. I'll try this one more time: I don't have any objection to translations. I've several practical objections to making the package maintainer responsible for those translations by putting them in the .deb package. Among those objections are that I can't evaluate those translations; significant bloat that affects everyone; and either delay in making new/fixed translations available or frequent uploads that affect only the Packages file, but have the practical effect of causing everybody to upgrade. Steve
