Comment 1 for bug 911339

RPM is registered with The Translation Project for translations.

Part of being included in The Translation Project is that *only*
The Translation Project will be used.: a project that participates
is *not* supposed to check-in any i18n changes but rather to
encourage others (including developers and users) to submit
changes through The Translation Project national teams.

So "... quite old .." isn't accurate (wrto the @rpm5.org project) because
the latest available translations are pulled before every monthly
release.

There's no easy answer for ancient i18n because of complex FL/OSS politics.

Nor is there any easy answer for what SHOULD be documented and not in RPM:
RPM has many many many options that simply aren't useful to anyone but me
doing development and remote support/diagnosis. The mere act of documenting
some feature like --nosignatures or --nofsync causes users to try-and-see and
complain mightily when RPM "breaks".

Note that rpm had --rsegfault and --wsegfault options to segfault on demand.
Should these options be documented? Damfino ... I do know why the options
were added and what they were used for ... and I would argue that many options
simply do not need to be documented.