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

Re: Reporting bugs against packages not using po-debconf

"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <felipe@cathedrallabs.org> (13/03/2006):
> On 03/13/2006 03:49 PM, Thomas Huriaux wrote:
> > "Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <felipe@cathedrallabs.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 mia@qa.debian.org 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. :)

The list of packages with their bugs is the following:

anthy				295803
asterisk-chan-misdn		330542
b2evolution			351376
bottlerocket			205769
cdebootstrap			wontfix, maintainer refuses to explain why
cfal				283633
cfalrtl				351379
chdrv				205793
cpml				233100
cricket				205814
cxml				233104
daemontools-installer		237457
debian-edu-config		internal use
debsecan			351380
delo				250269
diald				200124
dict-gcide			207859
diffmon				137637
discover			351381
filterproxy			330547
gdm				261086
gidentd				194259
gom				356202
hybserv				351383
ispell-fi			kind of internal use
kerberos-configs		295495
libmail-bulkmail-perl		235166
libots				233102
libroxen-imho			286066
lowmem				d-i
lukemftpd			296054
masqmail			235493
miscfiles			kind of internal use
mkvmlinuz			298972
nagat				257678
ndtpd				257679
newpki-client			334229
nvidia-cg-toolkit		351388
prelude-nids			351390
qmail				351394
quake2-data			235635
radioclk			206835
slimserver			351374
suck				286065
usb-discover			d-i
waproamd			250275
watchdog			351398
webcalendar			351399
x-symbol			198862
yada				test template
zope-cmfplone			internal use
zope-docfindereverywhere	351402
zope-zshell			232437

The number of the bug give you a hint to know how badly maintained is
the package. Once again, before removal, I would mail mia@qa.debian.org,
waiting for the package to be orphaned if the maintainer is really MIA,
and ask to remove the package if nobody wants to take over package

If you want to create a wiki page or something to ease the work on this
list, I'm ready to help.

Thomas Huriaux

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: