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

Bug#426897: marked as done (Bad spanish translation on display selection during installation process)

Your message dated Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:10:28 +0200
with message-id <20080712100955.GA18087@patate.is-a-geek.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#426897: Bad spanish translation on display selection during installation process
has caused the Debian Bug report #426897,
regarding Bad spanish translation on display selection during installation process
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
426897: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=426897
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: installation
Severity: important

The translation to spanish of the description makes that a user who wants all the resolutions listed installed unmark all options; this makes the installation don't install any resolution in the X system, so X are not accesible without reconfiguration.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18-4-686
Locale: LANG=es_ES.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=es_ES.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Version: 1:7.3+8

On Fri, Jun  1, 2007 at 21:35:31 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:

> On Fri, Jun  1, 2007 at 19:14:14 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> 
> > > Hmm, as I've just noted in the bug log, this is not a question of the
> > > fidelity of the translation; it's a problem with the resulting behavior
> > > which is reported to be different from what's documented in both the English
> > > and Spanish debconf templates.
> > 
> > Hmmmm, OK. So the point becomes: is the behaviour wrong...or the
> > wording of the debconf templates incorrect?
> > 
> AIUI, the behaviour should be what's described by the debconf templates,
> but nobody has been bothered to look into what's going on inside
> xserver-xorg.postinst to understand why that doesn't work.
> 
We haven't been asking this question for a while now, so I'm closing
this bug.

Cheers,
Julien

--- End Message ---
Reply to: