(from debian-i18n mailing list) Quoting Helge Kreutzmann (firstname.lastname@example.org): > Somehow I missed the last step, and looking at the bugs for bacula, > all languages seem to be merged ... 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.
Description: Digital signature