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

Re: Removal of http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/templates/

"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <felipe@cathedrallabs.org> (13/03/2006):
> On 03/11/2006 05:12 AM, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > Quoting SZERVÁC Attila (sas@321.hu):
> >> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > Denis is talking about the status pages for debconf templates that do
> > not use po-debconf. These templates had to be translated "the hard
> > way" by putting translations directly in the templates file, without
> > using PO files.
> > 
> > The switch to po-based debconf translations ahppened shortly after the
> > release of woody, in September 2002. After active campaining by
> > translators, there is no more significant packages that still use the
> > old system. The very few that still do are unmaintained and crappy
> > stuff none cares about.
> > 
> > This is why Denis proposes to abandon the above pages.
> 	Should we report RC-bugs to these packages?  Or create a list
> (maybe a wiki pages) with packages that still uses old format? Maybe
> some packages could be removed.

Most of these packages already have a bug, minor or wishlist. Each time a
new package appears not to be using po-debconf, I fill a bug immediatly
(the last one is gom, #356202). I'm not sure increasing the severity of
these bugs is the right solution -- not having debconf translatable is
not critical. Reporting every maintainer to mia@qa.debian.org may be a
better solution.

Thomas Huriaux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: