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

Bug#609373: marked as done (release-notes: Please translate architecture names)

Your message dated Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:39:37 +0100
with message-id <54B6B7E9.2090704@thykier.net>
and subject line Re: Bug#609373: release-notes: Please translate architecture names
has caused the Debian Bug report #609373,
regarding release-notes: Please translate architecture names
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org

609373: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=609373
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: release-notes
Severity: minor
Tags: l10n


Now that #575761 is fixed, “64-bit PC” [32-bit PC] appears in the first
page of amd64 [i386] release notes, which is weird, at least in French,
where the appropriate name should be “PC 64 bits” [PC 32 bits].

It would be nice if architecture names were translatable (it might be
possible to define those names in another entities file that would be
handled by po4a), as they already are translatable in the “whats-new”



-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (600, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (150, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.36-trunk-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 2014-12-02 15:13, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Hi,
> [...]
> Yah, ... so far no one complained so it is working.
> Osamu

Excellent, then I will close this bug! :)


--- End Message ---

Reply to: