> > Well, IMHO such note pertains to README.Debian, not debconf. I would > > call it debconf abuse....Anyway: > > It was appearently deemed important enough to make it a high priority note > in the past, because for a large majority of users this step is necessary. Well, that is always debated when I raise such issues. Another raised arguments for debconf notes is the fact that only these can be translated. However, maintainers should never forget that these notes actually *interrupt* installs and are often very (too) verbose. So, really, only the very important ones should be kept.....and most of the time they should redirect users to the README.Debian file or software documentation. > > I don't really understand what changed (/me dreams of --previous being > > used in po-debconf, which shoul dhappen soon). > > The word "now" was dropped. OK. That definitely deserves a translation update. Furtunately, the next po-debconf version will use the new feature of gettext (--previous) that keeps the former msgid in comments. > > It seems that this string is the only one that got fuzzied. I wonder > > whether the translations could have been unfuzzied. > > As I said in the mail requesting updates, I manually unfuzzied all others, > but a review of those strings could still be in order in case I made a > mistake there. Plus I do know some French but still rather leave making > even small changes like dropping one word to the native speakers. You're absolutely right.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature