[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

teTeX debconf cleanup (was: Bug#320330: INTL:vi Vietnamese translation for tetex-base)



Sorry, 

again I forgot to put the list into the Cc line.  Here it comes again

Frank

--- Begin Message ---
Clytie Siddall <clytie@riverland.net.au> wrote:

> Cc to Christian, since the issue of non-current debconf templates
> comes up AGAIN. :(
>
> On 29/07/2005, at 2:26 AM, Frank Küster wrote:
>
>> Please don't bother too much with translations of tetex templates.
>> They
>> will at least change considerably in tetex-3.0 - and we'll be able to
>> drop lots of questions, anyway.
[...]
> Please, if you don't need something translated, remove it from the
> debconf files list. This has wasted my time and effort. :(

Our apologies for that.  We simply didn't have time to properly discuss
these things, and have not yet decided about everything.  Our priority
was on getting a compilable, working package first...  And anyway, I
think the translations are gathered from unstable, and the packages
simply weren't in a state that would have allowed an upload to unstable
(they are in experimental currently)

Not that it is compilable and runs, let's start.  Here is what I
suggest:

tetex-bin uses the following templates:

- tetex-bin/cnf_name:  Needed for upgrade from woody
  (oldstable), should probably be kept for etch

- tetex-bin/oldcfg: Not even in woody, can be dropped

- tetex-bin/lsr-perms and it's children: Must be kept.

- all other templates in tetex-bin, the "use update-* stuff", should be
  dropped.  A TeX system simply won't work without answering "yes", and
  I have already removed them from config.

tetex-base

- tetex-base/oldupdm: I'm puzzled here.  In woody, updmap was a script
  which was it's own configuration file, sitting in /etc/texmf/dvips/;
  now there's a configuration file and a separate script.  Therefore
  there is some handling of the old script in /etc, and the debconf
  question - but this looks at /etc/texmf/updmap!

  Has it been there at some time? Or is it just a mistake?  Anyway, if
  nobody complained during the development cycle of sarge, or after it
  became stable, about loosing their configuration from that file (or
  rather, about their local changes loosing their effect), we can
  probably drop that altoghether for etch.

- tetex-base/olddat: These old files are not in woody - I guess they
  were from some intermediate versions never released as stable, and we
  can simply drop that.

Comments, objections?

Regards, Frank


-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer





--- End Message ---

-- 
Frank Küster
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer

Reply to: