Quoting Régis Boudin (firstname.lastname@example.org): > Yes, I saw your email this morning and thought "it's not going to work". Happy to let you handle it, that was actually my hope :-). I'm mostly interested in knowing whether my approach is sensible or should be reverted. > > You can have look at cdebconf.templates and cdebconf.configuration, this should give you a pretty good idea of what I did (or at least intended to do). > These are actually not part of the udebs, the only one that is is the description for the GTK fronted, though it could probably be moved to cdebconf.templates anyway. I just marked the templates as translatable and part of the newly introduced "sublevel 6" (that isn't counted in statistics). I slightly changed the description of the GTK interface, which I found too technical, in order to stay in line with the current complexity level of D-I debconf templates. It is likely that this messes up things somewhere, maybe even in D-I localization outside cdebconf (as changes to introduce this new sublevel are not trivial) but I'll handle problems in case they happen..:-) Once the new strings end up in sublevel 6, I'll populate this sublevel with existing translations of debconf as a few of these strings are indeed existing in debconf as well.
Description: Digital signature