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

Re: Bug#426491: ucf: [debconf_rewrite] Debconf templates review

>         Thanks for your efforts for the translations for the ucf
>  package.  This is much appreciated.  Unfortunately, I will not be
>  applying the patches unmodified, since I  do not agree with some of the
>  changes suggested. (I am also not fully in agreement with the
>  antiseptic tone being advocated wrt user interaction; but that is a
>  discussion for another time)

No X at all, Manoj.

The final summary sent in a bug report is exactly aimed to trigger
what you sent: a confirmation by the package maintainer who has the
final word on the proposed changes.

So, thanks for the care you took answering the bug report and
expressing your concerns.

>         One of the first changes suggested is changing "keep your
>  currently-installed version" to "keep the currently installed version",
>  which I think is less clear. The version I woulds use would be "keep
>  the local version currently installed" instead; which emphasizes the
>  fact that we are talking about the version local to the machine.

That's completely fine by me.

> 	Secondly, if you are to hyphenate the currently-installed in
>  the choices; not hyphenating it in the default will break things; the
>  default has to be one of the choices.  I suggest adding this to the
>  review guidelines, so mistakes like this are not made.

Sorry for that. I'm afraid I'm entirely responsible for this mismatch
introduction. Even reviewers have no responsibility..:-)

>  "Debian policy states" --> "The Debian policy states".  "The Debian
>  Technical Policy Manual states"; if you want to be pedantic. I don't
>  think there is a "The" Debian policy. We have the Debian X policy, The
>  Debian Web policy, The Debian Menu policy ....

Indeed, I was initially thinking about using a formulation that
entirely avoids "Debian" so that derived distros can use the templates
and their translations as is.

Something like "Established packaging guidelines" or something like
this, maybe?

>         Also, configuration files do not preserve changes.  Entities
>  acting on configuration files must act in a manner that user initiated
>  changes to configuration files must be preserved; if we are being
>  pedantic, we should be consistently pedantic.

I'm missing the context here but I guess you're right.

>         However, since this is obviously creating some distress, how
>  about:
>    This script attempts to provide conffile-like handling for files that
>    may not be labelled as conffiles.

Seems perfectly fine by me.

>         Next, in one place the replacement for `' is '', in another it
>  is "" (obviously, it should be ‘’, since debconf templates can handle
>  utf-8, right?).

debconf templates, yes, but gettext still issues some warnings so the
dle folks settled on using single quotes.

Remaining double quotes are more an error than anything else.

>         Do you want me to upload a version of UCF with the new version
>  of the templates, and feed those to the translators?

I suggest we first exchange on an agreed templates file. Would you
mind sending your rewritten one in the bug report (I'm subscribed to
the PTS for ucf, so no need to CC), eventually CC'ed to

Once we have converged on something, then I'll use the rewritten
templates file for a translation update round (it should last for
about 15 days). Whether or not an upload happen in the meantime is
indeed not really critical and is left to your judgement.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: