Hi Christian,
Thank you for reviewing the templates.
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 01:12:34PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> @@ -20,6 +30,9 @@
>
> Template: partman-crypto/text/not_active
> Type: text
> +# This is related to "encryption method"
> +# Encryption type for a filesystem
> +# This is related to "encryption method"
(One duplicate comment.)
> Template: partman-crypto/ivalgorithm
> Type: select
> Choices: ${choices}
I notice we make inconsistent use of ${choices} vs
${CHOICES} in the Choices: field of templates. I'd like to
change all occurences of ${choices} in Choices fields to
${CHOICES}. Will that fuzzy translations?
> Template: partman-crypto/text/erase_data
> Type: text
> -Description: Erase data:
> +# This shows up in a screen summarizing options and will be followed
> +# by "yes" or "no"
> +_Description: Erase data:
The two strings "yes" and "no" are currently hardcoded and
cannot be translated. I would add the following two templates,
do they look OK to you?
Template: partman-crypto/text/no
Type: text
# As in: "No, don't erase the data"
_Description: no
Template: partman-crypto/text/yes_erase
Type: text
_Description: yes, erase it
> Template: partman-crypto/text/keytype/passphrase
> Template: partman-crypto/text/keytype/keyfile
> Template: partman-crypto/text/keytype/random
The keytype templates are not used in the code currently, but
they should be. I will commit a fix shortly.
> Template: partman-crypto/warning_experimental_nonaudit
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> -Description: Are you sure you want to continue?
> - Important warning:
> - .
> +_Description: Really use block device encryption?
> The support for block device encryption is still experimental and not
> considered ready for production. In particular it may result in setups
> that are easy to break and so give a false sense of security. There are
> - no known encryption flaws, however, until we have completed a thorough
> - audit of the implementation, please do NOT USE this feature for production
> - setups unless you know what you are doing.
> + no known encryption flaws, however, until the implementation is thoroughly
> + audited, this feature should not be used except for testing purposes.
On second reading, I'm not sure about the use of "however"
(also in my original version). To me it reads a little like
"there are no problems though (so relax)", rather than the
intended "there are no known problems, but be cautious anyway",
what do native speakers think?
Many thanks for your work on this Christian. I think your
proposed changes are already a big improvement. I'm happy if you
commit them once the discussion concludes.
cheers,
Max
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
