Re: please review updated templates for fglrx-driver [non-free]
Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> Template: fglrx-driver/install-even-if-unsupported-gpu-exists
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> #flag:translate!:3
> _Description: Install Fglrx driver despite unsupported graphics card?
> The following graphics chipset found in your system is no longer handled
> by the Fglrx driver (package fglrx-driver):
> .
> ${unsupported-device}
> .
> The above card requires either the non-free legacy Fglrx driver
> (package fglrx-legacy-driver) or the free Radeon driver
> (package xserver-xorg-video-radeon).
> .
> The fglrx-legacy-driver package will be provided in wheezy-backports.
> .
> Before the Radeon driver can be used you must
> remove Fglrx configuration from xorg.conf (and xorg.conf.d/).
> .
> Note that switching to the free Radeon driver requires the
> fglrx-driver package to be purged (not just removed).
> .
> You may wish to keep fglrx-driver (for instance to drive some other card),
> but the above card won't be usable.
>
>
> This is getting a bit long due to the many paragraphs - is there a
> possibility to have the sentences to be translated individually without
> putting them in separate paragraphs?
>
> This sentence separation is needed as I want to enable/disable certain
> parts in future uploads (targeting experimental or wheezy+1) without
> messing up all the translations. E.g. there are changes already in
> experimental that obsolete the "needs to be purged" part (but I doubt
> the release team will consider them for wheezy) and jessie won't need
> information about stuff in wheezy-backports.
What's the point of separating the "Before" and "Note" paragraphs?
Aren't they in fact saying two parts of the same thing?
I suppose in principle you also could merge the last paragraph into
the first, since they're both "invariable".
This system has a graphics card which is no longer handled by the Fglrx
driver (package fglrx-driver). You may wish to keep the package
installed - for instance to drive some other card - but the card with the
following chipset won't be usable:
.
${unsupported-device}
.
The above card requires either the non-free legacy Fglrx driver
(package fglrx-legacy-driver) or the free Radeon driver
(package xserver-xorg-video-radeon).
.
The fglrx-legacy-driver package will be provided in wheezy-backports.
.
Note that before the free Radeon driver can be used, the
fglrx-driver package to be purged (not just removed), and all
Fglrx configuration removed from xorg.conf (and xorg.conf.d/).
Hang on, I've been here before:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2012/06/msg00062.html
But once we're talking about Jessie, how would anybody get into the
position of reading this as news? Wouldn't they necessarily already
have gone through the transition away from fglrx-driver unless they're
skipping a release (which isn't supported anyway)? Or, I suppose,
keeping a spare card labelled "known good with fglrx-driver".
> For your information, the package will also carry this NEWS entry:
>
> fglrx-driver (1:12-6+point-2) unstable; urgency=low
>
> Starting with the Catalyst 12.6 release, AMD/ATI has moved the support for
> R6XX/R7XX based GPUs to a legacy driver.
> This includes any RadeonHD older than 5xxx,
> e.g. RadeonHD 2000
> RadeonHD 3000
> RadeonHD 4000
(Couldn't you just say "older than the RadeonHD 5000 series"? It
seems fairly obvious that the RadeonHD 4000 series is older, and none
of the actual cards ever had triple-0 product codes...)
> These graphics adapters are only supported by the fglrx-legacy-driver
> package (which is currently only available in experimental and will be
> made available via wheezy-backports), or the free Radeon driver
> (xserver-xorg-video-radeon).
>
> Before the Radeon driver can be used you must
> remove Fglrx configuration from xorg.conf (and xorg.conf.d/).
> Note that switching to the free Radeon driver requires the
> fglrx-driver package to be purged (not just removed).
Looks good.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: