Re: wrong correspondence between Packages and Translation-en
Davide Prina <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Hi Ian,
> On 21/02/2012 15:30, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> I support the dak change to split off the long descriptions into their
>> own files.
> Packages (P) and Translation-en (T) have some differences, I don't
> understand that there are correct:
> * some packages are in P, but not in T (today I don't found one);
Must be a race condition. This shouldn't happen.
> * some packages are in T, but not in P (lib32z1);
T are for all architectures but packages aren't available on all archs.
> * some packages are in T and P but with different versions (libace-6.0.1);
A combination of the first and the next?
> * some packages have more versions in T than in P (eog-plugins);
Again a result of T being for all architectures. Versions of a package
may varry between architectures.
> * ...
> Is this correct?
> I'm writing a script and I'm expecting a perfect correspondence
> between Packages and Translation-en.
> I don't know if this issue can generate trouble in DDTSS or others
> Debian parts.
What you should expect is that every entry in P has a matching entry in
T but you must handle cases where that isn't true. Having extra entries
in T that aren't used by P is perfectly fine. Just ignore them if you
don't need them.