Bug#725851: [ITR] templates://fpc/{fp-compiler.templates.in}
Just to be absolutely sure that you know and we are not doing double work: we had a review of fpc last year (bug 686038 [1]) But I now made the templates of the debconf of fp-compiler translatable. I suggest we only review those. Paul [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686038 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#725851: [ITR] templates://fpc/{fp-compiler.templates.in}
On 10/14/13 06:58, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Paul Gevers (elb...@debian.org): [ By the way, isn't it explicitly ? ] It is. I just prefer making it clear in that standard template. There are times where we could eventually be more pushy, mostly during release freezes. As some maintainers know that I can be a bit pushy wrt these things.I just prefer confirming them that this is not the case *here*...:-) Sorry Christian, I don't mean to criticize (lots of smiley's here), but from the point of view that this is about language I found it funny that you have what I believe is a typo in your template: explicitely. I and my spelling checker might be wrong though, and I did understand the meaning. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#725851: [ITR] templates://fpc/{fp-compiler.templates.in}
Quoting Paul Gevers (elb...@debian.org): Sorry Christian, I don't mean to criticize (lots of smiley's here), but from the point of view that this is about language I found it funny that you have what I believe is a typo in your template: explicitely. I and my spelling checker might be wrong though, and I did understand the meaning. :-). I absolutely (or should that be absolutly?) *didn't* get that...:) Funnily (and not funniely), these templates are used for about 6 years without nobody noticing, including our main reviewer. I just corrected that now, in the template. Thank you for being more awaken than me...;-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#725851: [ITR] templates://fpc/{fp-compiler.templates.in}
Dear Debian maintainer, The Debian internationalisation team and the Debian English localisation team will soon begin the review of the debconf templates used in fpc. This review takes place for all packages that use debconf to interact with users and its aims are: - to improve the use of English in all debconf templates; - to make the wording of debconf templates more consistent; - to encourage more translations of templates. Even if your first language is English, this process is likely to help track down typos or errors, and improve consistency between the debconf templates of your package and that of other packages in the distribution. The process involves both debian-l10n-english contributors and Debian translators. The details of the process are given in http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/SmithDebconfReviewProcess. I will act as the coordinator of this activity for fpc. The first step of the process is to review the debconf source template file(s) of fpc. This review will start on Wednesday, October 16, 2013, or as soon as you acknowledge this mail with an agreement for us to carry out this process. All parts of the process will be carried out in close collaboration with you, and, unless you explicitely ask for it, no upload nor NMU will happen for fpc. If you approve this process, please let us know by replying to this mail. If some work in progress on your side would conflict with such a rewrite (such as adding or removing debconf templates), please say so, and we will defer the review to later in the development cycle. Thank you for your attention. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#725851: [ITR] templates://fpc/{fp-compiler.templates.in}
On 10/13/13 15:32, Christian PERRIER wrote: This review will start on Wednesday, October 16, 2013, or as soon as you acknowledge this mail with an agreement for us to carry out this process. Ack, so please start when it is most convenient for you. All parts of the process will be carried out in close collaboration with you, and, unless you explicitely ask for it, no upload nor NMU will happen for fpc. We prefer to take this update ourselves. [ By the way, isn't it explicitly ? ] If you approve this process, please let us know by replying to this mail. Done. Paul signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#725851: [ITR] templates://fpc/{fp-compiler.templates.in}
Quoting Paul Gevers (elb...@debian.org): On 10/13/13 15:32, Christian PERRIER wrote: This review will start on Wednesday, October 16, 2013, or as soon as you acknowledge this mail with an agreement for us to carry out this process. Ack, so please start when it is most convenient for you. All parts of the process will be carried out in close collaboration with you, and, unless you explicitely ask for it, no upload nor NMU will happen for fpc. We prefer to take this update ourselves. [ By the way, isn't it explicitly ? ] It is. I just prefer making it clear in that standard template. There are times where we could eventually be more pushy, mostly during release freezes. As some maintainers know that I can be a bit pushy wrt these things.I just prefer confirming them that this is not the case *here*...:-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
