#10797 NORM Not Tri: Integrate Language packs into olpc-os-builder

[Zarro Boogs per Child]

#10797: Integrate Language packs into olpc-os-builder
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  reuben        |                 Owner:  martin.langhoff
     Type:  defect        |                Status:  new            
 Priority:  normal        |             Milestone:  Not Triaged    
Component:  not assigned  |               Version:  not specified  
 Keywords:                |           Next_action:  never set      
 Verified:  0             |   Deployment_affected:                 
Blockedby:                |              Blocking:                 
--------------------------+-------------------------------------------------
 From an old thread with Sayamindu:

 Hi,

 On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Reuben K. Caron <reuben at laptop.org>
 wrote:

 On Mar 23, 2010, at 4:48 AM, Sayamindu Dasgupta wrote:

 Hi,
 Of recent, there has been OLPC sponsored translation efforts for
 languages like Brazilian Portuguese, Hindi and Haitian Kreyole (all of
 these are for potential deployments).

 I'd also like to add Arabic.

 While we can easily integrate
 the work done by these translation teams in the core sugar packages of
 our builds (we maintain these packages) - there are no straightforward
 ways to do this for activities. Some activities see regular releases,
 but there are some (like Paint) without any proper maintainer at all.

 I was wondering if it makes sense to make the build system pull in the
 translation of the activities directly from the translation server and
 replace the older ones with it.

 I was surprised when I found out we already did not do this.

 Does it sound like a sane idea ? It's
 a bit ugly in the sense that we would be blindly overwriting older
 translations, but I think it is better than shipping translations that
 were last updated in 2008, especially when OLPC is investing in making
 the translations up to date.

 Can you elaborate on what peer review or approval is being done on
 translations to ensure the accuracy of translations? This may decrease the
 fear of "blindly overwriting" translations.


 Normally translations done via contractors tend to be of higher
 quality. I also try to follow their progress and work personally and
 encourage them to use Pootle's built in quality check mechanisms
 (which catch at least half of the common mistakes translators make).
 As for peer review, usually its a one person team (eg: Robson for
 Brazilian Portuguese or Ravishankar for Hindi), so it is a bit
 difficult to do that.
 I think that with the Pootle checks, along with checks via msgfmt
 (which convert the translations into the final MO files), we can be
 reasonably sure about the quality. The msgfmt checks will also ensure
 that wrongly formatted translation files will not make things crash.

 Thanks,
 Sayamindu

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/10797>
One Laptop Per Child <http://laptop.org/>
OLPC bug tracking system