Re: [RFC] entropy plugin rework + support for the graphical installer
Hey Jérémy,
On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:27:50PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:42:24PM +0100, Max Vozeler wrote:
> > The implementation looks fine from a quick glance. Please
> > feel free to add integrate it into cdebconf-entropy when
> > you are happy with it.
>
> Attached is a patchset which makes various changes to the current
> cdebconf-entropy package in order to support other frontends than newt,
> adds support for the GTK+ frontend, and update partman-crypto
> accordingly.
These are good improvements, thanks!
I have reviewed your patches and couldn't spot any problems from
the code and packaging side.
The following points probably need someone with more knowledge
of translations and better "feeling" than I can offer for both
english and template wording to comment on:
> * AFAIK, the string displayed after gathering enough entropy was not
> translated before, as partman-crypto/entropy-text-success was not
> defined anywhere. So please comment on the newly introduced
> partman-crypto/entropy-success.
"Key data has been created successfully."
This seems okay to me. FWIW. I'm not a native speaker, and I'm
probably blindfolded as I wrote this string initially ;-)
> * debconf/entropy/success is the fallback template when SUCCESS has not
> been substituted to a more relevant template. As it should not
> normally appear in d-i, I have put it under sublevel 5. Please
> comment on the wording nevertheless. :)
_Description: Enough entropy has been gathered.
This too seems okay to me.
> * No string changes actually happened, but as the previous
> partman-crypto/entropy-text content has been splitted between
> debconf/entropy/text/{action,help} and partman-crypto/entropy,
> I would be glad to know the best way to update po files directly
> instead of putting more burden on translators shoulders.
bubulle, could you offer advice?
> * debconf/entropy/gtk/* are slights variations of
> debconf/entropy/text/* mentioning the mouse and might benefit from
> better wording as well.
Here IMHO bubulle's suggested wording sounds very good.
> I have tested these changes by putting the affected udebs directly in
> netboot images, so I am unsure if the changes in dependencies and
> dynamic retrieval of crypto packages are correct. I would be glad if
> someone could test that. :)
AFAICS, the switch to a virtual package cdebconf-entropy is
the only change that carries some risk..
Because we cannot do versioned depends on virtual packages, we
need to manually keep those two packages in sync when uploading
and for testing migration.
Overall, I think we should go ahead with these changes - they
seem safe enough for me even during this beta stage.
As I said on IRC, thanks for your work :-)
Max
Reply to: