From d61efe852f58a9a25c82c8141814b687f207220d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rafael Fontenelle Date: Jan 05 2024 02:19:51 +0000 Subject: Added translation using Weblate (Portuguese (Brazil)) Co-authored-by: Rafael Fontenelle --- diff --git a/po/pt_BR/master/pages/Package_Review_Process.po b/po/pt_BR/master/pages/Package_Review_Process.po new file mode 100644 index 0000000..be7fe6f --- /dev/null +++ b/po/pt_BR/master/pages/Package_Review_Process.po @@ -0,0 +1,626 @@ +# SOME DESCRIPTIVE TITLE +# Copyright (C) YEAR Free Software Foundation, Inc. +# This file is distributed under the same license as the PACKAGE package. +# Rafael Fontenelle , 2024. +msgid "" +msgstr "" +"Project-Id-Version: PACKAGE VERSION\n" +"POT-Creation-Date: 2023-09-07 21:56+0000\n" +"PO-Revision-Date: YEAR-MO-DA HO:MI+ZONE\n" +"Last-Translator: Automatically generated\n" +"Language-Team: none\n" +"Language: pt_BR\n" +"MIME-Version: 1.0\n" +"Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8\n" +"Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit\n" + +#. type: Title = +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:3 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Package Review Process" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:8 +msgid "" +"In order for a new package to be added to Fedora, the package must first " +"undertake a formal review. The process is governed by the FESCo approved " +"xref:fesco::Package_review_policy.adoc[Package Review Policy]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:10 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Review Process" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:15 +msgid "" +"There are two roles in the review process, that of the contributor and that " +"of the reviewer. This document presents both perspectives." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:17 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Exemptions" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:25 +msgid "" +"Certain packages are exempted from the review process as described in the " +"xref:fesco::Package_review_policy.adoc#what[Applicability section of Package " +"Review Policy]. If an exemption is warranted, the contributor can directly " +"request a repository for the package. The request to create a repo should " +"include the `--exception` flag instead of a bug number:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:27 +#, no-wrap +msgid "fedpkg request-repo --exception \n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:29 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Contributor" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:36 +msgid "" +"A Contributor is defined as someone who wants to submit (and maintain) a " +"new package in Fedora. To become a contributor, you must follow the " +"detailed instructions to xref:Joining_the_Package_Maintainers.adoc[Joining " +"the Package Maintainers]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:40 +msgid "" +"As a Contributor, you should have already made a package which adheres to " +"the xref:packaging-guidelines::index.adoc[Packaging Guidelines] and does not " +"contain any https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items[Forbidden Items]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:44 +msgid "" +"When you're happy with your spec file, you should then submit that SRPM to a " +"package review. Currently, this is done by following these steps:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:50 +msgid "" +"Put your spec file and SRPM somewhere on the Internet where it can be " +"directly downloaded (just http(s), no registration pages or special download " +"methods, please). If you have no place to put your spec and SRPM, use " +"https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/[copr]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:55 +msgid "" +"Fill out a " +"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=fedora-review[request " +"for review in bugzilla]. Make absolutely certain to file this bug with an " +"account tied to your FAS email address, otherwise your followup requests " +"will be closed as invalid." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:65 +msgid "" +"If nobody comments on your review request, you might want to mail to a " +"mailing list (for example, devel) or the " +"https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/c/workflows/pkg-review-swap/91[Package " +"Review Swaps category] on Fedora Discussion to ask for a \"review swap\". " +"This is an offer to do a review of someone else's package in exchange for " +"them reviewing your package. This is usually one-for-one, or can be some " +"other private arrangement depending on the difficulty of the respective " +"packages." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:69 +msgid "" +"If you are not member of the " +"https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager] group, you need " +"a sponsor. Add " +"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-NEEDSPONSOR[FE-NEEDSPONSOR] " +"to the bugs being blocked by your review request. For more information read " +"xref:How_to_Get_Sponsored_into_the_Packager_Group.adoc[How to Get Sponsored " +"into the Packager Group]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:72 +msgid "" +"If this is a \"re-review\" request needed to " +"xref:Package_Retirement_Process.adoc#claiming[claim ownership] of a retired " +"package, add `Unretirement` to the _Whiteboard_ field." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:76 +msgid "" +"Wait for someone to review your package! At this point in the process, the " +"`fedora-review` flag is blank, meaning that no reviewer is assigned." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:87 +msgid "" +"There may be comments from people that are not formally reviewing the " +"package, they may add `NotReady` to the _Whiteboard_ field, indication that " +"the review request is not yet ready, because of some issues they report. " +"After you have addressed them, please post the URLs to the updated SPEC and " +"SRPM file and clear the Whiteboard. It is expected that you will respond to " +"commentary, including updating your submission to address it; if you do not, " +"your ticket will be closed." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:90 +msgid "" +"A reviewer takes on the task of reviewing your package. They will set the " +"`fedora-review` flag to `?`." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:96 +msgid "" +"The reviewer will review your package. You should fix any blockers that the " +"reviewer identifies. Once the reviewer is happy with the package, the " +"`fedora-review` flag will be set to `+`, indicating that the package has " +"passed review." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:99 +msgid "" +"If you have not yet been sponsored, request sponsorship by " +"https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/issues[raising an issue at " +"packager-sponsors]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:106 +msgid "" +"When your package passes the review you should use `fedpkg` to request a Git " +"repository for it. Before you can request a Git repository for the package, " +"you will need a https://pagure.io/settings/token/new[pagure.io api token] " +"with _Create a new ticket_ ACL added into `~/.config/rpkg/fedpkg.conf`:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:110 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"[fedpkg.pagure]\n" +"token = \n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:116 +msgid "" +"Request a Git repository for the package. For example, if the package name " +"is `my-package` and the bugzilla review ticket is 12345, :" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:119 +#, no-wrap +msgid "fedpkg request-repo my-package 12345\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:125 +msgid "" +"Check that your review bug is valid. It must have the `fedora-review` set " +"to `+`, and it must be assigned to your reviewer. Otherwise your repository " +"request will be closed as invalid." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:130 +msgid "" +"If you want to add your package to more Fedora releases and not just " +"Rawhide, let's say to Fedora {MAJOROSVER}, you can use the following command " +"to request additional branches:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:133 +#, no-wrap +msgid "fedpkg request-branch --repo my-package f{MAJOROSVER}`\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:138 +msgid "" +"You do not need to wait for your repository to be created before filing your " +"branch request, but you should request the repository before requesting " +"branches." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:142 +msgid "" +"When https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issues[fedora-scm-requests " +"tickets] for the requested repository and branches are closed, checkout the " +"package:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: delimited block . +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:145 +#, no-wrap +msgid "fedpkg clone\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:149 +msgid "" +"Now you can " +"xref:New_Package_Process_for_New_Contributors.adoc#import_commit_and_build_your_package[import " +"your SRPM package]. Do a final check of spec file tags, etc." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:152 +msgid "" +"Request a Koji build by running `fedpkg build`. (You will need to set up " +"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/Kerberos[Kerberos for Fedora " +"project])" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:154 +msgid "Repeat the process for other branches you may have requested above:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:155 +msgid "Checkout given branch: `fedpkg switch-branch f{MAJOROSVER}`" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:156 +msgid "Let Koji build the package for this branch: `fedpkg build`" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:160 +msgid "" +"Request updates for Fedora release branches, if necessary, using `fedpkg " +"update` or another Bodhi interface as detailed in " +"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bodhi[Bodhi]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:162 +msgid "" +"If possible, add your package to " +"xref:Upstream_Release_Monitoring.adoc[Upstream Release Monitoring]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:166 +msgid "" +"To be notified if your package stops building successfully when dependencies " +"are updated in Fedora, you can enable " +"https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koschei[Koschei]." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:174 +msgid "" +"You should make sure the review ticket is closed. You are welcome to close " +"it once the package has been built on the requested branches. If you built " +"for one of the Fedora release branches you can ask Bodhi to close the ticket " +"for you when it completes the process. If you close the ticket yourself, " +"use `NEXTRELEASE` as the resolution." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:179 +msgid "" +"You do not need to go through the review process again for subsequent " +"package changes, and should not reference the review ticket in subsequent " +"updates you create in Bodhi." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title === +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:180 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Reviewer" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:183 +msgid "The Reviewer is the person who chooses to review a package." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:189 +msgid "" +"The Reviewer can be any Fedora account holder who is a member of the " +"https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/[packager group]. (If the " +"Contributor is not yet sponsored, the review can still proceed to completion " +"but they will need to find a sponsor at some point.)" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:192 +msgid "" +"Search http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/[Package Review Tracker] " +"for a review request that needs a reviewer: `fedora-review` flag is blank or " +"the bug is assigned to `nobody@fedoraproject.org`." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:199 +msgid "" +"If you notice some issues that need to be solved before you want to start a " +"formal review, add these issues in a comment and set the _Whiteboard_ of the " +"bug to contain `NotReady`. This helps other possible reviewers to notice " +"that the review request is not yet ready for further review action." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:203 +msgid "" +"If you want to formally review the package, set the `fedora-review` flag to " +"`?` and assign the bug to yourself." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:205 +msgid "Review the package" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:207 +msgid "" +"Go through the MUST items listed in " +"xref:packaging-guidelines::ReviewGuidelines.adoc[Review Guidelines] ." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:209 +msgid "" +"Go through the SHOULD items in " +"xref:packaging-guidelines::ReviewGuidelines.adoc[Review Guidelines] ." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:213 +msgid "" +"The https://pagure.io/FedoraReview[FedoraReview] tool (packaged as " +"`fedora-review`) can help to automate this process." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:217 +msgid "" +"Include the text of your review in a comment in the ticket. For easy " +"readability, simply use a regular comment instead of an attachment." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:219 +msgid "Take one of the following actions:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:222 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"*ACCEPT* - If the package is good, set the `fedora-review` flag to `+`.\n" +"Do not close the review ticket yet - this will be done by the submitter\n" +"once the package becomes available in Fedora.\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:230 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"*FAIL, LEGAL* - If the package is legally risky for whatever reason\n" +"(known patent or copyright infringement, trademark concerns)\n" +"close the bug as `WONTFIX`\n" +"and leave an appropriate comment\n" +"(i.e. _we don't ship mp3, so stop submitting it_).\n" +"Set the `fedora-review` flag to `-`,\n" +"and have the review ticket block " +"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-Legal[FE-Legal].\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:239 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"*FAIL, OTHER* - If the package is just way off\n" +"or unsuitable for some other reason,\n" +"and there is no simple fix,\n" +"then close the bug as `WONTFIX`\n" +"and leave an appropriate comment\n" +"(i.e. _we don't package pornography for redistribution, sorry._\n" +"Or, _this isn't a specfile, it's a McDonald's menu, sorry._)\n" +"Set the `fedora-review` flag to `-`.\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:246 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"*NEEDSWORK* - Anything that isn't explicitly failed should be left open\n" +"while the submitter and reviewer work together to fix any potential " +"issues.\n" +"Mark the bug as `NEEDINFO`\n" +"while waiting for the reviewer to respond to improvement requests.\n" +"This makes it easier for reviewers to find open reviews\n" +"which require their input.\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:253 +msgid "" +"Once a package is flagged as `fedora-review +` (or `-`), the Reviewer's job " +"is done although they may be called upon to assist the Contributor with the " +"import/build/update process and to ensure that the Contributor closes the " +"ticket when the process is complete." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:255 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Definitions for fedora-review flag Settings" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Table +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:263 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"|fedora-review |(BLANK) |Package Needs Review\n" +"|fedora-review |? |Package Under Review\n" +"|fedora-review |- |Package Failed Review, dropped for legal or other " +"issues.\n" +"|fedora-review |+ |Package Approved\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:266 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Special blocker tickets" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:270 +msgid "" +"There are a few tickets which can be placed in the \"Blocks\" field to " +"indicate specific ticket statuses:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Table +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:276 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"|FE-NEEDSPONSOR |The submitter requires a sponsor; the review can be done by " +"anyone, but a sponsor will need to come and sponsor the submitter.\n" +"|FE-DEADREVIEW |The review has been closed out because the submitter has " +"left; users looking for packages to submit may find some possibilities in " +"these dead tickets.\n" +"|FE-Legal |The package is currently awaiting review by the legal team.\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:279 +#, no-wrap +msgid "The Whiteboard" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:288 +msgid "" +"To save time for reviewers, the " +"https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/reviewable.html[New, " +"reviewable Fedora package review tickets] page will hide certain tickets " +"which are not reviewable. The _Whiteboard_ field can be used to mark a " +"ticket with various additional bits of status which will cause it to be " +"hidden or displayed differently." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Table +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:296 +#, no-wrap +msgid "" +"|NotReady |The package is not yet ready for review. It is possible to open a " +"review ticket, mark it as NotReady, and continue to work on it until it's " +"ready to be seen by a reviewer.\n" +"|BuildFails |The package fails to build.\n" +"|AwaitingSubmitter |The package review is stalled and cannot proceed without " +"input from the submitter.\n" +"|Trivial |The package is trivial to review. See below.\n" +"|Unretirement |A re-review needed to " +"xref:Package_Retirement_Process.adoc#claiming[claim ownership] of a retired " +"package .\n" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:302 +msgid "" +"The `Trivial` status is intended to indicate packages which, as an aid to " +"new reviewers, are especially uncomplicated and easy to review. A ticket " +"should not be marked as being trivial unless:" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:305 +msgid "The package is known to build and a link to a scratch build is included." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:307 +msgid "The ticket explains any rpmlint output which is present." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:310 +msgid "" +"The spec contains nothing which is unnecessary in modern Fedora (such as " +"`BuildRoot:`, a `%clean` section or `%defattr`)." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:312 +msgid "The spec is free from excessive or complicated macro usage." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:315 +msgid "" +"The spec uses only the least complicated scriptlets which are taken directly " +"from the xref:packaging-guidelines::Scriptlets.adoc[Scriptlets] page." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:317 +msgid "The package contains no daemons." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:319 +msgid "The package is not especially security sensitive." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:322 +msgid "" +"The code has undergone a thorough inspection for licensing issues. " +"Anomalies which would be found by `licensecheck` should be explained." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:326 +msgid "" +"In short, this should be reserved only for those tickets which should be " +"easily approachable by someone doing their first package review." +msgstr "" + +#. type: Title == +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:328 +#, no-wrap +msgid "Tracking of Package Requests" +msgstr "" + +#. type: Plain text +#: ./pages/Package_Review_Process.adoc:332 +msgid "" +"The http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus[Package Review Tracker] " +"provides various review-related reports and a simple way to search for " +"reviews by package name or reporter name or others." +msgstr ""