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

Re: Review in progress: bacula debconf templates

(from debian-i18n mailing list)

Quoting Helge Kreutzmann (debian@helgefjell.de):

> Somehow I missed the last step, and looking at the bugs for bacula,
> all languages seem to be merged[1] ... could you shed a light on the
> state of baculian templates?

I actually went recently on bacula on my radar for pending translation
work (http://i18n.debian.net/debian-l10n/l10n-nmu/nmu_bypackage.html).

I first mistakenly closed the bugs that were reported after the
debconf templates review, because the package currently has complete
translations for these languages. So, I thought that John, the
maintainer, had forgotten to close the bugs.

Then I found out about the review...which I did myself, which made the
l10n updates logical. So I reopened the bugs.

It would be Good, however, that all this is integrated in the package
ASAP, to make such concerns disappear.

John Goerzen is an active maintainer and I know that bacula is a
"key" package (at least it is for me so I assume that many ppl are
using it as network backup solution). That explains why I didn't yet
propose an l10n NMU for this package.

John, what are your plans regarding all this "debconf review" and
subsequent l10n updates stuff? If you like, I can prepare for you what
would be an NMU....but then leave it up to you to merge it with work
you could have in progress on some other matters.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: