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 t
Daniel Baumann 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.
(Just for a start, why is that
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 do
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> 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.
>
>
The live-build package was uploaded today.
Changelog mentions:
* Applying some of the suggestions from the reviewed control file
from debian-l10n-english (Closes: #643957).
As a consequence, it's quite likely that, out of the 8 completed
translations from the translation update round, 7
Quoting Justin B Rye (j...@edlug.org.uk):
> It would have been handy if you'd been able to point out this
> misunderstanding during the call-for-comments stage of the d-l-e
> review. While I personally don't mind rehashing the review process,
> some of our l18n contributors may see it as wasted e
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 tr
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 ru
Daniel Baumann wrote:
> Justin B Rye wrote:
>> 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 c
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
Quoting Daniel Baumann (daniel.baum...@progress-technologies.net):
> >So, as annoyed as I am, I will certainly *not* do anything more on
> >this package. Period.
>
> closing bug then, thanks.
I wondered whether I should de-escalate this or not.
I will actually choose an intermediate position.
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
