Quoting Rafael Laboissiere (rafael@debian.org):
> Thanks for your suggestion. I prepared a new patch [1] that also changes
> the .po files accordingly. Also, I have added the ja, es, and fi
> translations, as well as updated the vi translation, which have been
> reported against atlas3. I tried to be careful by running debconf-updatepo
> and also fixing POTFILES.in. However, since I am not used with debconf
You mention fixing POTFILES.in....good idea.
atlas3 had a pending bug about POTFILES.in not mentioning
atlas3-base.templates.
Of course, applying the fix in that bug imemdiately broke all
translations as the strings are considered "new".
However, former versions of the package indeed had these strings
translated.
So, I cheated (in atlas3) and bringed back these strings when
preparing my NMU.
There's a chance that the same is needed for atlas.
> l10n, it would be great if you can review my patch. Anyway, if you are
> going to NMU anything, please consider doing it for atlas instead of atlas3.
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=10;filename=atlas-debconf-templates-po.diff;att=1;bug=472366
OK, I'll look at it.
But, still, as long as atlas3 is in unstable, I'l consider NMUing
it. Actually, I could quite safely NMU both of them. There's a quite big
chance that it is useless for atlas3 but that doesn't really harm ("ça
fait pas de mal"....:-))
Would an upload of atlas3 interfere with some transition?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature