Re: Some names are missing from the list of translators
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Huriaux wrote:
> Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> (13/11/2005):
>
>>Thomas Huriaux wrote:
>>
>>>Luk Claes <luk@debian.org> (13/11/2005):
>>>
>>>
>>>>Daniel Nylander wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thomas Huriaux skrev:
[...]
>>>I've fixed it as following (in the dl10n cvs):
>>>- if (m/^"Last-Translator:\s*(.*)\\n"$/m) {
>>>+ if (m/^"Last-Translator:\s*(.*)\\n"\r?$/m) {
>>>
>>>Luk, I don't know where you have fixed it, but the .* should be added
>>>after the " and not before. I also prefer to limit it to \r? and not .*.
>>
>>I don't see any reason to put it behind the ",
>
>
> "Last-Translator: ^"Last-Translator:
> (spaces) \s*
> Daniel Nylander <po@danielnylander.se> (.*)
> \n \\n
> " "
> \r \r?
> (end of the line) $
Stupid me, I should have checked with an example :-) This " is literally
as is the \n, so that's why it's \\n here...
>>nor do I understand why
>>you want to limit it to "\r?", maybe we should change it so that all
>>common EOLs are supported: \n, \r and \n\r?
>
>
> \n (unix EOL) is ok
> \r\n (dos EOL) is ok with \r?
> \r (mac EOL) gives disastrous results with everything (debconf-updatepo,
> ...), so if somebody send such a file, I hope the maintainer won't
> include it. That's why I think it's better to limit it to \r?.
I didn't know that the tools don't work with an EOL \r. So, I don't have
any reason to not agree anymore ;-)
>>If you want to limit it to \r, did you check if your expression works as
>>I'm not sure if it there shouldn't be an extra "\" ...
>
>
> no, \\ means \
...your answer is a bit ambiguous as you probably mean that it has to be
one \ regardless if you checked or not :-)
Cheers
Luk
- --
Luk Claes - http://people.debian.org/~luk - GPG key 1024D/9B7C328D
Fingerprint: D5AF 25FB 316B 53BB 08E7 F999 E544 DE07 9B7C 328D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFDd4Pz5UTeB5t8Mo0RAmVvAKCzcpF59wpJxdnjhwzDvAQMHx4TTACgzLhV
ZVUNkqY+XHQrQmMFAyK/Bj4=
=GfdC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: