Re: RFH: APT
On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Michael Piefel wrote:
> They may not be new (though all were touched in 2002, and that's not
> really very old), but they still contain the majority of the
I observed that some fuzzy matching was happening that really wasn't
working out so well. I saw translated strings with fewer % chars for
> Naturally, I'm interested in this. If no-one objects, I'd like to
> contact all the current translators to deliver their updated version
> which corresponds to the current CVS messages.
Please go ahead.