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

Re: grub2 2.02~beta2-18: Please update debconf PO translation for the package grub2

On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:37 +0000, Justin B Rye wrote:
> Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-12-12 at 13:07 +0200, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> >>> #. Type: boolean
> >>> #. Description
> >>> #: ../templates.in:3001
> >>> msgid ""
> >>> "Some EFI-based systems are buggy and do not handle new bootloaders "
> >>> "correctly. If you force extra installation of GRUB to the EFI removable "
> >>> "path, it should make sure that this system will boot Debian correctly "
> >>> "despite such a problem. However, this may remove the ability to boot any "
> >>> "other operating systems that also depend on this path. If so, you will need "
> >>> "to ensure that GRUB is configured successfully to be able boot any other OS "
> >>> "installations correctly."
> >>> msgstr ""
> >> 
> >> After doing some research I can guess "EFI removable path" is actually 
> >> "EFI removable media path". Shouldn't this be changed in English as 
> >> well?
> > 
> > Perhaps.
> > 
> > CCing Sledge and Kibi (who IIRC had a related EFI terminology question)
> > + debian-boot.
> Don't forget it's also in the short description:
>  _Description: Force extra installation to the EFI removable path?
> But what exactly does "force extra installation" mean here?  If it's
> just a slightly abbreviated way of saying "force AN extra
> installation of GRUB", the version in the long description ought to
> spell it out.
> And while I'm here, I'd reverse the uses of "make sure" and "ensure",
> and switch an "it" with a "this".

All good points.

I'm not sure what to do though, they seem relatively minor and we are
frozen + the call for translations has already been sent. I'm not sure
it's worth restarting all that at this point for these issues.

At the moment I'm inclined to leave this until either Stretch or if
there is some other critical freeze-exception-worthy change to be made.
Anyone disagree?

My main take away lesson here is that I should insist all new debconf
templates go through the debian-l10-english review process first...


Reply to: