Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
Template: cdebconf/frontend
Type: select
Choices-C: ${choices}
Choices: ${echoices}
# :sl6:
_Description: Interface to use:
Packages that use debconf for configuration share a common look and
feel.
You can select the type of user interface they
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 07:14 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Sure, will be clearer.
Can be improved with:
[...]
(this way, ${descriptions} will not be added as a string to
translate with the risk of some translators translating the varaiable
name, which is a very common mistake)
Well,
It would be nice if it didnt Conflict: with debconf (debconf-2.0) because no one needs such problems
early in install.
Cant it run side-by-side debconf (ie, user can theoretically run either) ? It's easy to make side
by side apps but i know: sometimes not.
Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 07:53 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Having thought about it a bit more today, I believe moving the template
for cdebconf/frontend/gtk to cdebconf.templates is the right thing to
do. Although it would put the text in the wrong package, it would be
in its dependency,
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
Has anyone had time to look into it ? It would be nice to get
confirmation whether I should revert to the original debconf templates,
or go ahead and make the new ones translatable.
I'd prefer handling this myself if you don't mind, to coordinate
Christian PERRIER bubu...@debian.org wrote:
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
Has anyone had time to look into it ? It would be nice to get
confirmation whether I should revert to the original debconf
templates,
or go ahead and make the new ones translatable.
I'd prefer handling
Quoting Régis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
Yes, I saw your email this morning and thought it's not going to work.
Happy to let you handle it, that was actually my hope :-). I'm mostly
interested in knowing whether my approach is sensible or should be reverted.
You can have look at
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:01 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
I just marked the templates as translatable and part of the newly
introduced sublevel 6 (that isn't counted in statistics).
Thanks, that's awesome !
I slightly changed the description of the GTK interface, which I found
too
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:01 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
I just marked the templates as translatable and part of the newly
introduced sublevel 6 (that isn't counted in statistics).
Thanks, that's awesome !
It's now in place and, strangely, I
Hi again,
First 2 races done, I've managed to get some sleep, so I'm back for a
week until I switch to China time...
Aren't texts identical to debconf ones? I was thinking so, so I never
paid attention to this very strongly.
At least they should be similar, so we should reuse debconf
Hi,
Apologies for the delay in replies at the moment. Providing support for
the Australia last weekend, and Malaysia this weekend, so I'm mostly
sleeping on my free time...
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 19:08 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
An obvious one
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 14:56 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Regis Boudin wrote:
That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the
config
script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it
before.
Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst.
FWIW, I saw
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 14:56 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Regis Boudin wrote:
That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the
config
script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it
before.
Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst.
FWIW, I saw
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:16:56 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
Hi everyone !
That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded
cdebconf 0.159.
Time for me to switch..:-)
Oh, so I'll start breaking people's machine, now !
First
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:40:22 -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
Regis Boudin wrote:
Hi everyone !
That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded
cdebconf 0.159.
Although some features are still missing, it should actually be
usable.
Well, I've been using it on my main machine
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
An obvious one for you should be the complete absence of i18n for
cdebconf itself. It would be nice if someone could review what I did
for
the frontend selection to make sure it's ok before marking the
templates
as translatable.
Aren't texts
Regis Boudin wrote:
Perhaps it's time to get some wide testing? This could be done by
temporarily making debconf default DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1
Sounds like an idea. the various scripts will probably need an
additional
check for cdbconf's existence, though, since it caused me trouble
I was
Regis Boudin wrote:
That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the
config
script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it
before.
Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst.
FWIW, I saw the same thing; debconf was using dialog and cdebconf
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
Hi everyone !
That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded
cdebconf 0.159.
Time for me to switch..:-)
First glitch I had : I did setup DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1, then I ran
dpkg-reconfigure samba and.I ended up with the text
Regis Boudin wrote:
Hi everyone !
That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded
cdebconf 0.159.
Although some features are still missing, it should actually be usable.
Well, I've been using it on my main machine for a month with 2 daily
updates, and a few dpkg
Hi everyone !
That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded
cdebconf 0.159.
Although some features are still missing, it should actually be usable.
Well, I've been using it on my main machine for a month with 2 daily
updates, and a few dpkg-reconfigure -a, and all blocking
21 matches
Mail list logo
