Ian Campbell <ijc@debian.org> writes: > Hello l10n-english, > > In http://bugs.debian.org/789798 I've proposed a new debconf question > for grub-installer (part of d-i which handles installing grub on those > platforms which use it as a bootloader). The question is low priority > and I would normally expect it to be used via preseeding, nonetheless > some review of the wording would be appreciated. I've already applied > the tweak suggested by Steve in the bug to the text below. > > Here it is: > > Template: grub-installer/no-nvram > Type: boolean > Default: false > # :sl4: > _Description: Avoid adding GRUB to Firmmware NVRAM configuration? > By default GRUB will be registered into NVRAM on platforms where this is > required. e.g. UEFI Boot Manager or OpenFirmware boot device. > . > This is sometimes not desirable, e.g. for systems which PXE boot and chainload > instead and do not want the firmware configuration adjusted. Answering no here > will avoid making such adjustments. There seems to be a double negative here. The parameter is 'no-nvram' so I'd expect 'True' to indicate that one should avoid touching the NVRAM, whereas the text says: Answering _no_ here will avoid making such adjustments. I think that "no" should be "yes". Also, the "and do not want the firmware configuration adjusted." seems a bit redundant, given the preceding "not desirable". How about: Ocasionally this is not desired (e.g. on systems that PXE boot and then chainload). Answering "yes" here will leave NVRAM untouched. BTW Is "yes" actually the right thing to say here? Or should one say "setting the option" or some such, so it works with GUIs that present this as a tick-box, say. I'd also make the "device" at the end of the first paragraph be "devices" instead. Cheers, Phil. -- |)| Philip Hands [+44 (0)20 8530 9560] HANDS.COM Ltd. |-| http://www.hands.com/ http://ftp.uk.debian.org/ |(| Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34, 21075 Hamburg, GERMANY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature