Re: Bug#645850: lxc package debconf templates
retitle 645850 debconf templates and debian/control review severity 645850 wishlist tag 645850 - patch thanks On 11/14/2011 08:15 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: Daniel, was something broken in the review I sent to you? most of the suggested changes for the debconf templates were not usable as they were completely wrong. for the records, this is your entire suggested diff for templates: ---snip--- --- lxc.templates.orig»·2011-11-14 08:53:09.867052982 +0100 +++ lxc.templates»··2011-11-14 08:53:41.491205482 +0100 @@ -1,13 +1,13 @@ Template: lxc/title Type: title -_Description: Linux Container (LXC) +_Description: Linux Containers (LXC) setup · Template: lxc/auto Type: boolean Default: true -_Description: Linux Container: Automatic start and stop - Linux Containers that have their configuration files copied or symlinked - to the /etc/lxc/auto directory can be automatically started during system - boot and shutdown on reboot/halt. +_Description: Automatically start Linux Containers on boot? + Linux Containers can be automatically started during system + boot and shut down on reboot or halt. . - If unsure, choose yes (default). + If you choose this option, the required symlinks will be created in + the /etc/lxc/auto directory. ---snap--- i used '_Description: Linux Containers: LXC setup' which is in sync with what linux-container uses (Linux Containers: Container setup). for lxc/auto, i used your suggested new short description and the second part of your suggested sentence in the long description, ending up with: _Description: Automatically start Linux Containers on boot? Linux Containers that have their configuration files copied or symlinked to the /etc/lxc/auto directory can be automatically started during system boot, and shut down on reboot or halt. . If unsure, choose yes (default). so i used all there could be used. the rest of your suggested changes are just wrong. the package does not do what you suggested it to say. it does what i described originally. while i certainly appreciate corrections for style/grammar/typo/wording etc., i prefere if you do not change the meaning unless you actually had a look at what the package does. apparently, maintainers still do understand their packages better than translators., for the rest, well, lxc got two new debconf questions and the newly added linux-container package has 11 debconf questions. of course they are untranslated initially. -- Address: Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-i18n-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec0cc81.7060...@progress-technologies.net
Re: Bug#645850: lxc package debconf templates
On 11/14/2011 11:56 AM, Justin B Rye wrote: i used '_Description: Linux Containers: LXC setup' which is in sync with what linux-container uses (Linux Containers: Container setup). In that case linux-container probably needs some fixes to bring it in line with DevRef 6.5.4.2.2. i'm afraid i don't understand: 6.5.4.2.2 speaks about "Boolean templates", not about titles. (Just for a start, why is that package called "linux-container" rather than "linux-containers"? Is it perhaps an unwise abbreviation of "Linux Container tools"?) package names are not and should not use plurals if they are generic. If unsure, choose yes (default). See DevRef 6.5.2.4; some interfaces don't offer a "yes", just a checkbox (and defaults can be changed by preseeding). sure, however, suggesting removal instead of rewording is not an option. The problem with a phrasing that uses passives throughout is that it isn't immediately obvious that it's offering to have them "started and shut down" *automatically* but expecting the files to be "copied or symlinked" *manually*. again, please suggest a proper rewording. writing something language-wise correct but factually wrong is obviously not an option either. I would suggest splitting up the template into something like: _Description: Automatically start Linux Containers on boot? Please choose whether appropriately configured Linux Containers should be automatically started during system boot, and shut down on reboot or halt. . To take advantage of this, copy or symlink their configuration files into the /etc/lxc/auto directory. s/appropriately configured // otherwise sounds good, thanks. I'm still not sure I understand this, though. If it only affects containers that have been manually "opted in", why is it necessary to ask this question? Why not just put it in the README that containers with config files in /etc/lxc/auto will automatically be started on boot? a LXC_AUTO=true|false in /etc/default/lxc is important to have for sysadmins (aka the users of this package), and having a debconf interface for it is nice for those of us that admin more than one box. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-i18n-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec1056f.6040...@progress-technologies.net
Re: Bug#645850: lxc package debconf templates
On 11/14/2011 06:52 PM, Christian PERRIER wrote: This package was still using the former process because I hadn't time yet to polish the process. right, and that's now my fault? I am annoyed because I handled a full translation update round that required a significant amount of time from 8 translators of 8 different languages, without any kind of input from Daniel to at least stop the process and tell us "guys, you're going the wrong way". if the whole processes would be more maintainer friendly, "reviewers" who are going "the wrong way" wouldn't slipp so easily. This for a package with 41 strings, which is really significant. no it's not. you've just reviewed two things only, lxc/title and lxc/auto (the other strings are 6 new ones in lxc for newly added debconf questions, and 31 new ones in the newly added linux-container package not present since). that is a total of 4 strings you've reviewed and which were translated subsequently. not more, not less. i'd appreciate if you at least keep facts straight. I am annoyed because lintian warns about all that and, still, the upload happened. why not? l10n can always synched anytimes, that doesn't justify a hold-up of important package updates. I am annoyed because the only answer I got was today's answer basically saying that our review was crap. ftr, those were not my words (i do tend to watch my language). however, you know what's really annoying? *you* screw up, i didn't see it in time, *you* blame me for *your* faults. please, grow up.. So, as annoyed as I am, I will certainly *not* do anything more on this package. Period. closing bug then, thanks. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-i18n-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec17f40.6070...@progress-technologies.net
Re: Bug#645850: lxc package debconf templates
On 11/14/2011 02:27 PM, Justin B Rye wrote: (Just for a start, why is that package called "linux-container" rather than "linux-containers"? Is it perhaps an unwise abbreviation of "Linux Container tools"?) package names are not and should not use plurals if they are generic. Wouldn't that rule out package names like "coreutils", "lm-sensors", and "locales"? no, those are fine, since they do provide stuff in plural. the group of packages that i had in mind was e.g. kernel packages. i guess you'd agree that they should not be named linux-images-2.6.$something. The package "linux-container" does not provide either one Linux Container or many Linux Containers. It provides utilities for the LXC system no, it applies the necessary modifications to a normal system in order to make that usable as a container for lxc, see README.Debian. (and it's not named lxc-container for that matter, since it will later be split out so that it handles vserver/xen/$whatever transformations too; see TODO) _Description: Automatically start Linux Containers on boot? Please choose whether appropriately configured Linux Containers should be automatically started during system boot, and shut down on reboot or halt. . To take advantage of this, copy or symlink their configuration files into the /etc/lxc/auto directory. s/appropriately configured // otherwise sounds good, thanks. Well, taking out the "appropriately configured" makes it less obvious that these are particular containers (referred back to by the "their" later on) rather than the whole LXC system that's being autostarted. Are you unhappy with it because it sounds as if it's a variable being set in the configuration file? yes, it sounds to me as if they would need to be specifically prepared (in the rootfs or in the config file) to be auto started/stopped. If so, would "appropriately linked" or something like that be better? it doesn't necessary need to be a sym- or hardlink, the config file can also be a copied. how about this: Please choose whether Linux Containers which have their configuration file copied or symlinked into the /etc/lxc/auto directory should be automatically started during system boot, and shut down on reboot or halt. splitting into two sounded first a good idea, but makes things actually more complicated. what do you think? -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-i18n-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec1817f.7090...@progress-technologies.net
Re: Bug#645850: lxc package debconf templates
On 11/14/2011 11:33 PM, Justin B Rye wrote: Please choose whether Linux Containers configured in /etc/lxc/auto should be automatically started during system boot, and shut down on reboot or halt. nice, i like that one. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-i18n-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec1a72e.5070...@progress-technologies.net
Re: Bug#645850: lxc package debconf templates
On 11/15/2011 07:19 AM, Christian PERRIER wrote: And, of course, I also regret the poor wording of these extra templates, which lintian does send warnings for (particularly interrogative form in long descriptions). It's not like it's your first debconf templates..:-) again, i see nothing wrong in adding them and improving them at a later point. As written in another mail, the same happened with live-build and this is apparently a proof that we can't communicate with each other. for one thing it's prooving that, again, 'reviewers' don't know the package they're reviewing, get sometimes on "the wrong path", and when they do, it's very likely nobody from the maintainers do notice it time due to the complexity and maintainer unfriendlyness of the whole process (for live-build, this stuff gets to debian-live mailinglist, so a bunch of people did miss it, not just me). My conclusion is therefore that I can't conduct reviews for your packages, Daniel. fair enough, have a good live then. -- Address:Daniel Baumann, Donnerbuehlweg 3, CH-3012 Bern Email: daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net Internet: http://people.progress-technologies.net/~daniel.baumann/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-i18n-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ec219c4@progress-technologies.net
Bug#744941: reassigning to debian-i18n
reassign 744941 debian-i18n retitle 744941 DDTP gnunet: improve German translation thanks Hi, while I share the feeling that the German translation of the gnunet package description could be improved, there's nothing I can do about it in the package. Unfortunately there's neither any DDTP specific nor debian-l10n pseudo-package in the bts, so debian-i18n seams to be the closest fit (not ideal, but still better than on src:gnunet). Hence reassigning it. Regards, Daniel
