Re: BoF item 4/14: Splitting modules

[Daniel Mustieles García <daniel mustieles gmail com>]

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 <cjlhomeaddress gmail com>

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Johannes Schmid <jhs 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