Bug#208801: openssh: French debconf templates translation
tags 208801 pending
thanks
On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 07:13:42AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org):
> > debian/po/fr.po after debconf-updatepo? OK, it's attached.
>
> The corrected file is attached.
Thanks, applied.
> > #. Description
> > #: ../templates.master:19
> > #, fuzzy
> > msgid ""
> > "Since you've opted to have me generate an sshd_config file for you, you can "
> > "choose whether or not to have Privilege Separation turned on or not. Unless "
>
> I, personnally, tend to discourage the use of first person speaking in
> debconf templates. This is explicitely discouraged by Policy for init
> scripts. Though, nothing is mentioned for debconf templates, the
> reason is IMHO the same?: the computer is not a person and we should
> rather adopt the same conventions than scientific publishing?: only
> neutral forms and never never use first person constructions.
>
> So, I'd suggest something like "Since you've opted to have the
> sshd_config file generated for you..." (this may be wrong
> english.....I guess you're more able than me to turn this in correct english)
I think I really prefer the original, actually; your suggested
alternative shifts to the passive voice, which is weaker, and I can't
think of a better alternative in the active voice right now.
Init scripts are qualitatively different from debconf templates, because
init scripts report status in a very functional and concise way whereas
debconf templates talk directly to often inexperienced users. As such, I
think the rules of scientific writing are too formal, and a chattier
style (within sensible limits) can be appropriate.
> > "you know you need to use PAM features that won't work with this option, you "
> > "should say yes here."
>
> Hmmmm, I missed that one. I should have filed a BR for this for the
> following reason( generic text I send in such circumstances)?:
>
> Debconf templates should avoid using constructions like this because of the
> various interfaces used by debconf. Depending for instance on translation,
> some of these may present the user with a choice different from a Yes/No
> choice....and some may not.
Agreed. I've rephrased to "you should enable it", which I noticed
afterwards is conveniently close to the existing French translation.
> > #. Description
> > #: ../templates.master:137
> > #, fuzzy
> > msgid "Do you want to run the sshd server ?"
> > msgstr "Voulez-vous utiliser le serveur sshd??"
>
> The space before the question mark should be removed, for english (not
> for french).....some other questions have the same problem.
I know some English speakers who disagree, but for consistency's sake
I've changed it, since it indeed isn't standard typography.
> Of course, all these suggested modifications will again "re-fuzzy"
> translations...?:-(. For the question mark problem, you can manually
> unfuzzy them, there is no risk (using vi for editing files should nbot
> break character encoding).
CVS would tell me anyway. :)
> For the "yes/no" problem, translators will have to update their
> translations (except french.....we already removed the Oui/Non
> constructions).
OK. I've conservatively unfuzzied a few translations here.
> Thanks for your consideration on i18n stuff.
Thanks for your help!
Cheers,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: