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

Re: RFS: wicd-client-kde

Iker Salmón San Millán wrote:

> Hello again, i've uploaded the package again and i hope that there will be
> less errors this time.


indeed there are less ! But still. :-)

> I've added manpage

Nice, but not completely correct: it is named as a manpage for Qt: QT:(1), 
etc. Please change that to wicd-client-kde. Furthermore, it seems to lack 
your name as author of said manpage (and mentioning how you prepared it).

> i've corrected copyrigth

Nice, DEP-5 !

> changelog

Okay now !

> and  build dependecies.

Ditto, it compiles. :->

> I think that the best option is to add conflicts with knm-runtime because
> there are so many troubles running network-manager-kde and wicd-daemon
> (actually a think they cannot run at the same time, i don't know why you
> can install both)

In fact, you can install both because there is no reason not to be able to.

For now, I'd find this situation satisfactory, yet not ideal: icons should 
be renamed on one side to avoid the conflict.

> I would be very gatetful if someone could review my package again and tell
> me something before i send a new request with "update package" in subject.

The patch you have made to fix the spelling errors still has some issues:

* You should incorporate "DEP-3" headers to it. 
* You are renaming the "informationsButton" object into "informationButton". 
Why that ? This will never appear in the GUI and will only be a source of 
errors, no ?
* You changed "adress" for "address" in the english source and in all po's, 
but it seems you made a quick "search and replace". This has the following 
 - in french, you substituted "adresse" for "addresse", which is wrong
   (french adresse has one 'd')
 - You changed the "source translations" blindly (aka the translations are
   not marked "fuzzy". How do you know that the non-plural form of
   "Information" is translated the same in chinese as its plural form ?

So I would say that both entagled part of the patch are wrong and I would 
simply drop it: the code change is too risky and the i18n label change is 
done too blindly.

Just convince upstream to release a fixed version. :-)



Reply to: