Quoting Ming Hua (email@example.com): > After (briefly) reading the bug report, I understand your frustration. The main frustration is not about the way this maintainer behaves. After all, I think that using words that he intends to be rude, he's just proving that he does not feel himself very comfortable on the topic. The main frustration is the lack of answer, explanations and justification of the initial rejection of the bug report suggestion. > Apparently Jon, the maintainer of qmail-src, feels differently about > what a debconf template should and shouldn't do. > > I don't know how many translators agree with me, but I would suggest > removing qmail-src from DDTP/DDTSS if it's easy, to make sure qmail-src > is at the lowest priority on translator's list. Actually, there is even no need to avoid working on qmail-src debconf templates because.....this package does not use po-debconf. It has a longstanding bug report to switch to po-debconf which is quietly ignored. The debconf templates also need some deep rewrite to make them....usable. They even look silly in any debconf interface except the dialog one. I think indeed that it would be good to keep this package as is, just as a good example of what should NOT be done when using debconf in a package. Too bad indeed that this is a non free package (mostly because of qmail braindead licensing, IIRC.....). It would better if we had good counter-examples in the main archive.
Description: Digital signature