Your message dated Sat, 22 Dec 2012 15:43:04 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#686038: RFS: fpc/2.6.0-7
has caused the Debian Bug report #686038,
regarding [debconf_rewrite] Debconf templates and debian/control review
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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
686038: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686038
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: fpc
Version: 2.6.0-6
Severity: normal
Dear Debian maintainer,
Hello,
I just noticed new or modified debconf templates appearing for this
package, actually because it is not tagged as translatable.
So my proposal is to go through a review of English of this template
then a full translation update round.
I would like to suggest you to consider calling for debconf templates
review AND translation updates when you introduce new debconf
templates or modify the existing templates in a package or, if you
prefer, to send a call for translations after uploading the first
version that introduces new templates or templates changes.
If you're interested in suggestions for doing this, you can find some
at the end of this bug report.
The debian-l10n-english team will now start a review, on our own
initiative. It will be conducted through this bug report.
Suggestions for future debconf templates review
------------------------------------------------
1) Getting debconf templates reviewed
--------------------------------------
The Debian i18n contributors have developed a set of suggestions for
the writing style of debconf templates, to give them an overall
consistency all around Debian. These writing style suggestions are
explained in the Developers Reference. Lintian also warns about common
writing style concerns.
Maintainers are welcome when they ask for a review of debconf templates
and/or packages descriptions on [email protected].
It is of course not needed to wait for someone (such as me right me)
proposing you such a review.
In such situations (whether the review is requested by the maintainer
or proposed by someone else), someone from the debian-l10n-english
team will pick up the review to do, handle it, and finally send you a
bug report with the suggested templates. If you want, you can ask for
being CC'ed to the various discussions when the templates are
reviewed.
2) Call for new translations
----------------------------
As soon as the templates have been reviewed, you can ask Debian
translators for new translations:
Just go to your package's build tree and use:
$ podebconf-report-po --call
This will propose you a generic mail which is to be sent to
[email protected] and call for new translations.
This utility will mention existing translations to avoid duplicate
work.
It will also attach the needed material to this mail.
Please also think about giving a deadline to translators. We like
deadlines..:-)
3) Always call for translation updates before uploading
-------------------------------------------------------
(of course only when you change the debconf templates!)
If your package already includes debconf translations (i.e. *.po files
in debian/po), please consider calling for translation updates if you
happen to change something in the templates… or just in case when you
release a new version.
This is done with the following command:
$ podebconf-report-po
This will build private mails to translators (i.e. people listed in
"Last-Translator" in the PO files) for translations that are
incomplete. These mails will included the needed PO file for each
translator.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1,
'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-3-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages fpc depends on:
ii fpc-2.6.0 2.6.0-6
Versions of packages fpc recommends:
ii fp-utils-2.6.0 2.6.0-6
fpc suggests no packages.
-- debconf information excluded
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Abou,
fpc is build, signed and uploading. Thanks.
On 22-12-12 00:12, Abou Al Montacir wrote:
> I've planned to upload it in 2 steps in order to keep the debdiff as
> small as possible and as clear for RT as possible.
>
> The plan is:
> * 2.6.0-7 with translation support, but no translations. So that RT can
> look deeply on debdiff and see minor changes.
> 1) fpc-2.6.0/debian/changelog: Short description of the changes
I am missing a description of why the update of the translations should
be severity important. Please explain that the debconf templates used to
be untranslatable, and THAT is the reason for the unblock request. Of
course the updated translations than go with it. Maybe David can even
put it to better words? I mean make that point very clear in the start
of your unblock request if you want to convince the RT.
> 2) fpc-2.6.0/debian/control: Automatically generated file from
> fpc-2.6.0/debian/control.in (see below for changes in this file)
I would also remove debian/control from the debdiff, as it is a copy of
control.in. Only mention it.
> 3) fpc-2.6.0/debian/control.in: Updated build dependency and
> descriptions
> 3.1) fpc requires now po-debconf to build in order to allow
> translating debconf screens
> 3.2) Updated description fields fixing bad English and rephrasing in
> order to make text clearer.
> 4) fpc-2.6.0/debian/copyright.in: Fixed typo preventing correct update
> of upstream release sources. This file is used to automatically generate
> fpc-2.6.0/debian/copyright upon build process.
> 5) fpc-2.6.0/debian/fp-compiler.templates.in: Updated description
> fields fixing bad English and rephrasing in order to make text clearer.
> 6) fpc-2.6.0/debian/po/POTFILES.in: Added file required by po-debconf
> 7) fpc-2.6.0/debian/po/templates.pot: Added file required by
> po-debconf
Paul
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--- End Message ---
