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

Broken POT files for Openstack-related packages (was: Re: Request to review templates of OpenStack-related packages)

Quoting Justin B Rye (justin.byam.rye@gmail.com):
> Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > During the review phase, I may have ommitted some packages (for
> > instance horizon). We also have the case of packages that have got so
> > many templates changes now and in the past (nova) that I'm compltely
> > lost with them.
> The part I'm worried about is the packages like glance where there was
> a d-l-e review ending with a revised template:
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2013/06/msg00106.html
> but the unpatched versions are turning up on debian-i18n:
>  https://lists.debian.org/debian-i18n/2013/08/msg00019.html
> I don't know how that happens, but don't those calls for translation
> need to be cancelled?

I found out what happened...:-(

Templates files contain non-ASCII characters (the word "propriétaire"
in French in a comment). Therefore, xgettext complains when generating
the templates.pot file. It spits out an error message....but
debconf-updatepo doesn't really fail: the templates.pot file just
remains as it.

As a consequence, the templates file in the packages arethe reviewed
ones....but the POT file sent to translators is still the old one.

The solution is to add this at the beginning of the
[encoding: UTF-8]

Then run debconf-updatepo....

In short, ALL translations that have been sent for ALL OpenStack
packages are outdated now. And all work in progress (such as the one
by the Spanish team) has to be partly redone.

I'm very sorry for this, I should have noticed....but, indeed, it
seemsthat there is a kind of malediction when it comes at packages
maintained  around OpenStack....

I'll go through packages one by one. I will resync translations in the
BTS with the new POT files and then ask translators for an update.

That will take days if not weeks....:-(

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: