Re: an oddity (was: Re: kexec-tools template update)
Apologies, I sent an empty message by mistake.
I'll have a look at the https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po-debconf/en dashboard and figure out if we should omit its generation or decide what to do.
Kind regards
El 6 de octubre de 2023 18:37:42 CEST, Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@larjona.net> escribió:
>
>
>El 6 de octubre de 2023 16:17:18 CEST, Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com> escribió:
>>RL wrote:
>>> What is the deal with
>>> https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po-debconf/en - are these
>>> packages with invalid .po or is the page just not coping with English
>>> being the 'default' (but then why are some listed as "complete")?
>>
>>It looks as if the handful of packages listed there as having "en.po"
>>files have various fairly trivial bugs:
>>
>> norwegian - no intelligible relationship between msgid and msgstr
>> The en.po file is datestamped 2007, so clearly a relic of some sort
>>
>> solaar - msgstr strings diverge arbitrarily from msgids
>> "Automatically generated" relics from before the review in
>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2014/09/msg00005.html
>>
>> kbd-chooser - msgstr strings pointlessly duplicate msgids
>> The listed translator died tragically back in 2010...
>> Could this be some sort of udeb oddity?
>>
>> tzdata - msgstr versions are more clearly expressed versions
>> Might be deliberate, but if so it ought to be documented.
>>
>> durep - pointless duplication of wobbly English
>> With the translator listed as "dummy"...
>>
>>This may imply that the best way forward would be to make sure that
>>lintian checks for en.po files.
>
--
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona
Sent with K-9 mail
Reply to: