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

Bug#387360: [checks/po-debconf] Invalid files in debian/po directory



Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> (13/09/2006):
> Thomas Huriaux <thomas.huriaux@gmail.com> writes:
> > The debian/po/ directory, if using po-debconf, should only contain *.po
> > files and the POTFILES.in and templates.pot files. Other files may
> > appear because of an unclean package, or because of a wrong filename.
> > In the attached "results.list" file, you will find the warnings for the
> > whole archive.
> 
> Hm... does this end up breaking anything?  It feels a bit aggressive to
> warn about someone having a README file in that directory or something.
> If having those extraneous files causes problems, though, that's another
> matter.

I don't think extra files cause any problems, however I haven't found a
real solution to find bad filenames.

> > W: dpkg-www source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/cs.po.Miroslav_Kure
> 
> This is an example of an extra file that, on its surface, seems
> legitimate.

This looks more like an old translation that could be removed.

My main purpose by writing this patch was to detect the following files:
  W: setserial source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/setserial.ja.po
  W: setserial source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/setserial.pl.po
Those one introduce the following fields in the master file:
  Description-setserial.ja.UTF-8:
  Description-setserial.pl.UTF-8:
The translations are then lost (unless a ll.po file also exists, which
is here the case for ja but not for pl).

or
  W: vtun source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/vtun_2.6-3_ja.po
introducing the Description-vtun_2.6-3_ja.UTF-8: field

Please also note that debian/po/output files are valid (I forgot them in
my patch), even if they seem to be pointless (needed for debconf < 1.2.0).


> > The two other files are patches to add this check.
> 
> The results raise, for me, a different question:
> 
> > W: bootsplash source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/cs.po~
> > W: bootsplash source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/fr.po~
> > W: bootsplash source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/ja.po~
> > W: bootsplash source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/pt.po~
> > W: bootsplash source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/pt_BR.po~
> > W: cpad-kernel source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/es.po~
> > W: cpad-kernel source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/vi.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/pt_BR.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/da.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/de.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/cs.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/es.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/fr.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/ja.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/nl.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/pt.po~
> > W: cvsd source: unknown-po-debconf-file debian/po/vi.po~
> [...]
> 
> Should we be warning about editor backup files in the debian diff or in
> native Debian packages?  That would catch quite a lot of what's showing up
> here.

That could be done, however, I didn't want to be too intrusive. If it
seems to be appropriate, I could work on a specific patch for this.

Thanks a lot for your fast answer.

-- 
Thomas Huriaux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: