Reporting bugs against packages not using po-debconf (was: Re: Removal of http://www.debian.org/intl/l10n/templates/)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 03/13/2006 03:49 PM, Thomas Huriaux wrote:
> "Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> (13/03/2006):
>> On 03/11/2006 05:12 AM, Christian Perrier wrote:
>>>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 email@example.com may be a
> better solution.
Hmmm, I was thinking about the very old ones, not the new ones.
But I did not phrase it clearly, sorry. :(
I was thinking about list which packages could be updated to use
po-debconf and which ones are too old and unmaintained and should be
"hinted" for removal. Specially because all the work to move for po-debconf
was done quite a while ago (woody times), well, in fact it was just an
offer to help tracking the remaining packages and list them in a wiki page
or something like that. :)
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----