Apologies, I sent an empty message by mistake. I'll have a look at the https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po-debconf/en dashboard and figure out if we should omit its generation or decide what to do.
Kind regards El 6 de octubre de 2023 18:37:42 CEST, Laura Arjona Reina <larj...@larjona.net> escribió: > > >El 6 de octubre de 2023 16:17:18 CEST, Justin B Rye ><justin.byam....@gmail.com> escribió: >>RL wrote: >>> What is the deal with >>> https://www.debian.org/international/l10n/po-debconf/en - are these >>> packages with invalid .po or is the page just not coping with English >>> being the 'default' (but then why are some listed as "complete")? >> >>It looks as if the handful of packages listed there as having "en.po" >>files have various fairly trivial bugs: >> >> norwegian - no intelligible relationship between msgid and msgstr >> The en.po file is datestamped 2007, so clearly a relic of some sort >> >> solaar - msgstr strings diverge arbitrarily from msgids >> "Automatically generated" relics from before the review in >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english/2014/09/msg00005.html >> >> kbd-chooser - msgstr strings pointlessly duplicate msgids >> The listed translator died tragically back in 2010... >> Could this be some sort of udeb oddity? >> >> tzdata - msgstr versions are more clearly expressed versions >> Might be deliberate, but if so it ought to be documented. >> >> durep - pointless duplication of wobbly English >> With the translator listed as "dummy"... >> >>This may imply that the best way forward would be to make sure that >>lintian checks for en.po files. > -- Laura Arjona Reina https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona Sent with K-9 mail
