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

Re: [ITR] templates://mnogosearch/templates

> > The real review work should later be sent in a "RFR" mail (Request For
> > Review).
> I'll get there eventually, but for now I'm still trying to make
> sense of the procedure.

That makes sense, of course. We also need to polish that procedure to
make it fit the work method of all contributors....and we need to have
good documentation to point newcomers to.

What I propose you is that I'll take the review over until you feel
comfortable enough with the procedure to handle some yourself. 
(that will come soon, I don't doubt it)

Of course, I will anyway need you because the changes I will propse
will certainly be far from perfect..:-)

> > That mail should contain the *entire* debconf templates file
> So the original version of the templates file should be included in
> both the ITR and the RFR?

Well, not the ITR. The ITR mail purpose is just saying "OK, folks, I
take that one, don't work on it yourselves". See this as a kind of

Of course, sending the RFR without sending an ITR is possible in case
you do the review immediately (for instance for very small
texts). You're just slightly risking that someone else just does the
same on her side.

> > as well
> > as the debian/control file after you review and change the original
> > file(s).
> I don't understand this part at all.  Are you saying I should fetch
> http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/m/mnogosearch/mnogosearch-common_3.2.41-0.2_all.deb,
> pull out the unmodified debian/control file and attach it to my RFR?

The debconf review includes the review of the package descriptions
contained in debian/control. So, what you need to send is your
reviewed debian/control file.

What is confusing, and I'll change this, is that the TAF mail doesn't
include the debian/control file so, indeed, you don't have the entire
material which should be taken from the package source.

Anyway, when it will come at handling the translation updates, the
package source will be needed so I'd recommend downloading the entire
source package. This is done by the "rewrite-prepare" utility from the
toolkit I announced las week-end (there's a link on the wiki page)

> Or that I should rebuild the package with an incremented version
> number...?  Or that I should always review the package-description
> as well as the templates (it does look like it needs it)?  Or do you

Yes, you should review both.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: