The main problem I see in OLPC moduleset is that it has some external modules (hosted in Transifex, etc).
This may be a problem for some coordinators, who doesn't have an account in this platform, and don't know to work with it (at the beginning, it may be a bit tricky...). Also, this kind of modules can be problematic, since you see the module completed at 80% in DL, but at 100% in Transifex, so you can get confused. 2012/8/3 Chris Leonard <cjlhomeaddr...@gmail.com> > On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Johannes Schmid <j...@jsschmid.de> wrote: > > Hi! > > > > See https://live.gnome.org/TranslationProject/SplittingModules > > > > Overall we wanted to base the "Supported language" status on having > > translated at least 80% of Core, Core Apps, Extra Apps and > > Accessibility. Furthermore, we *might* want to create a "Basic Support" > > status for having translated Core and Core Apps to give more motiviation > > to small teams. > > > > We still need feedback if there are any UI strings in the "Libraries" > > section that are shown to the user. (Excluding cryptic error messages > > and properties displayed in glade). > > Johannes, > > One of the main reasons I've mentioned the "OLPC Release Set" > > http://l10n.gnome.org/releases/olpc/ > > as a potential starting point for localizers is that it represents the > Gnome packages that are pulled down by OLPC (typically via Fedora RPM > repos) to create the Gnome side of the Sugar/Gnome dual-boot OS image, > as well as a few Gnome core infrastructure modules that lay a little > deeper in the stack of what is a fairly minimalist GNU/Linux Fedora > spin. > > It's value as a point of comparison is not so much that it is want is > needed for an OLPC XO laptop, but rather that it is a module > collection that has been culled down by intense size pressures (one GB > total storage on an XO-1) and therefore is one specific example of a > "minimal" set. > > I've done my best to keep the packages displayed in the OLPC Release > Set current by going through the packages.txt file in OLPC releases as > they become available, a pending major release by OLPC is complicating > this a little at the moment. I should explain that at the present, > time while there is an ongoing transition from GTK2 to GTK3 in the > Sugar / OLPC OS stack, I have chosen to only point to the GTK3 master > branch versions of packages. This release set is intended to be more > forward-looking in terms of L10n needs/wants and not necessarily about > back-filling translations on existing releases, although the reality > of the situation is that an OLPC release will likely be one or more > release cycles back from Gnome master when it goes out the door given > that it largely draws from Fedora RPM repos and lags the Fedora > release cycle. > > Taking a look at the libraries (or other packages) included in the > OLPC release set might give you some ideas about what it might be > worth including in a priority L10n target set. You will need to take > into account that given it's focus on children in the educational > setting, the inclusion of things like gcompris are driven because they > are educational games and not because they are needed to make a > minimal Gnome desktop sign and dance. > > Just a thought for your consideration. Consider it one downstream's > very-specific POV as measured by the packages pulled from Gnome. > > cjl > _______________________________________________ > gnome-i18n mailing list > gnome-i18n@gnome.org > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n >
_______________________________________________ gnome-i18n mailing list gnome-i18n@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-i18n
