Hi Sebastian, Sebastian Harl wrote: > Hi Kai, > > First of all, thanks for the translation. I was going to do that myself > but I did not get around to really do it :-/
No problem, that's what the translation teams are for. ;) If you like to do a translation of one of your packages or their debconf templates, please send an ITT to the respective mailing list. (I'm not sure if you know about these things like ITT, RFR, LCFC, BTS and so on, so I thought I mention that before you start off with another package only to find yourself "preceded" by someone else *g* If you'd like to have further information on this, please feel free to contact me about that.) > On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 07:23:13PM +0100, Kai Wasserbäch wrote: >> during the discussion on the German coordination list >> (debian-l10n-german) of the German debconf translation it was >> discussed whether in the following string it was meant to express that >> _both_ packages (perl and rrdtool) or _either_ of them are missing. >> The common assumption was that "either" was meant. For this reason the >> German translation (see #469334) states "either". But we believe, that >> this problem should be fixed in the template. >> >> So please clarify the following string: >>> #. Type: note >>> #. Description >>> #: ../collectd.templates:1001 >>> msgid "" >>> "This step requires the perl and rrdtool packages which you do not >>> currently " >>> "have installed. You need to perform the migration manually." > > Well, Imho it's quite clear that this is supposed to express that any > or all of those packages are missing. It clearly states that "perl _and_ > rrdtool" are required and that this requirement has not currently been > fulfilled - which is the main point of that message. I don't see any > benefit from a more detailed description of which package is missing. > > Thanks for the pointer though - more comments are welcome. So I'd like to do. I think it's not a problem that you should indicate which package is missing (in fact that was never asked and if it should have sounded like that I must apologize). The idea behind this report and the discussion on debian-l10n-german [0] was, that the debconf should not state that both packages are missing, when possibly only one does. At least not without prior checking. Kind regards, Kai [0] Guessing from your interest in translating the debconf template yourself, I'll think you speak German, so I post the link to the e-mail which caused this report: http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-german/2008/03/msg00004.html -- Kai Wasserbäch (Kai Wasserbaech) E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber (debianforum.de): Drizzt URL: http://wiki.debianforum.de/Drizzt_Do%27Urden GnuPG: 0xE1DE59D2 0600 96CE F3C8 E733 E5B6 1587 A309 D76C E1DE 59D2 (http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xE1DE59D2&fingerprint=on&hash=on&op=vindex)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
