On Mon AprĀ 8 2013 04:39:10 PM CST, Christian PERRIER <bubu...@debian.org> wrote:
> Quoting Thomas Goirand (z...@debian.org): > > > So, in all of the above packages, we have a huge redundancy in > > templates. I thought that best would be to have a system to avoid this > > redundancy, like having a package holding (most of) the templates, and > > we would do dynamic replacements of variables. This way, translations > > would need to happen only once, which would be a very good thing. > > That seems to be a good idea, at first glance. Something like > openstack-debconfig, or openstack-config. > > Using dbconfig-common for all database-related stuff is also a good > idea. I'm not sure how well it is maintained but it's anyway better > than reinventing the very same templates to prompt users about > databases, database users, password, etc. Yeah, we use it already for all packages that need a db! > You mention you have concerns about it....they probably come because > the package is not that actively maintained, I'm afraid. You missunderstood me. I have no problem to actualy *use* dbconfig-common, I have problems to read its code as an example, and would like to find something more easy to understand. So, do you have another package in mind which I could use as an example? > Sure. Let's hold the translation effort as of now. My recommendation > would be to make templates non translatable (drop the leading "_") in > the meantime, so that cinder moves away from our radar (having too > many packages in a kinda "pending" state doesn't help tracking down > stuff). I think I will reupload it in Experimental and ask for its removal from SID in fact. This wouldn't be the only reason why I would ask that in fact. Thomas (from my phone) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org