"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