"Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (13/03/2006): > On 03/13/2006 03:49 PM, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > "Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (13/03/2006): > >> On 03/11/2006 05:12 AM, Christian Perrier wrote: > [...] > >>>The switch to po-based debconf translations ahppened shortly after the > >>>release of woody, in September 2002. After active campaining by > >>>translators, there is no more significant packages that still use the > >>>old system. The very few that still do are unmaintained and crappy > >>>stuff none cares about. > >>> > >>>This is why Denis proposes to abandon the above pages. > >> > >> Should we report RC-bugs to these packages? Or create a list > >>(maybe a wiki pages) with packages that still uses old format? Maybe > >>some packages could be removed. > > > > Most of these packages already have a bug, minor or wishlist. Each time a > > new package appears not to be using po-debconf, I fill a bug immediatly > > (the last one is gom, #356202). I'm not sure increasing the severity of > > these bugs is the right solution -- not having debconf translatable is > > not critical. Reporting every maintainer to [EMAIL PROTECTED] may be a > > better solution. > > Hmmm, I was thinking about the very old ones, not the new ones. > But I did not phrase it clearly, sorry. :( > > I was thinking about list which packages could be updated to use > po-debconf and which ones are too old and unmaintained and should be > "hinted" for removal. Specially because all the work to move for po-debconf > was done quite a while ago (woody times), well, in fact it was just an > offer to help tracking the remaining packages and list them in a wiki page > or something like that. :)
The list of packages with their bugs is the following: anthy 295803 asterisk-chan-misdn 330542 b2evolution 351376 bottlerocket 205769 cdebootstrap wontfix, maintainer refuses to explain why cfal 283633 cfalrtl 351379 chdrv 205793 cpml 233100 cricket 205814 cxml 233104 daemontools-installer 237457 debian-edu-config internal use debsecan 351380 delo 250269 diald 200124 dict-gcide 207859 diffmon 137637 discover 351381 filterproxy 330547 gdm 261086 gidentd 194259 gom 356202 hybserv 351383 ispell-fi kind of internal use kerberos-configs 295495 libmail-bulkmail-perl 235166 libots 233102 libroxen-imho 286066 lowmem d-i lukemftpd 296054 masqmail 235493 miscfiles kind of internal use mkvmlinuz 298972 nagat 257678 ndtpd 257679 newpki-client 334229 nvidia-cg-toolkit 351388 prelude-nids 351390 qmail 351394 quake2-data 235635 radioclk 206835 slimserver 351374 suck 286065 usb-discover d-i waproamd 250275 watchdog 351398 webcalendar 351399 x-symbol 198862 yada test template zope-cmfplone internal use zope-docfindereverywhere 351402 zope-zshell 232437 The number of the bug give you a hint to know how badly maintained is the package. Once again, before removal, I would mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], waiting for the package to be orphaned if the maintainer is really MIA, and ask to remove the package if nobody wants to take over package maintenance. If you want to create a wiki page or something to ease the work on this list, I'm ready to help. -- Thomas Huriaux
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
