Aurélien GÉRÔME <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (23/09/2006): > severity 389057 wishlist > tags 389057 wontfix > thanks
I think you misunderstood my bug and have not read my patch. > On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 06:31:01PM +0200, Thomas Huriaux wrote: > > I've found the following problems with the > > ircd-hybrid/servlink-path-notice template: > > * the "error" type seems to be more appropriate for this template. See > > also the recent discussion on debian-devel about note templates > > displayed with a low or medium priority. > > This is *not* an error type, but really a note. Moreover, this only > happens with the SSL-enabled build which is *not* in the archive, but > the build system is provided for the users' convenience. Therefore, > you will *not* see it with the standard Debian package present in > the archive. If this is not an error, raise the priority. If having this line in the configuration file does not justify a high severity for the debconf template, remove it. > > * the following line in your config file: > > if [ -f "/etc/ircd-hybrid/ircd.conf" ]; then > > tests the existance of the ircd.conf file, so the adjective "possibly" > > is pointless > > I think it reflects the reality better, because this message occurs > *if* the config file exists. So if the config file *does* exist, you tell the user that the file *may* exist? I would tell the user it *does* exist. > > * the following line in your config file: > > if egrep -q '[\t ]*[^#]+servlink_path' /etc/ircd-hybrid/ircd.conf; > > tests if there is a servlink_path directive, so the if-then > > construction of your sentence is pointless. > > Same comment here, because it occurs *if* the config file contains > the servlink_path directive. So if the config file *does* contain the servlink_path directive, you tell the user that the file *may* contain the servlink_path directive? I would tell the user it *does* contain the servlink_path directive. > For those two points, it is needed to inform the user why he got > the message. > > > May I take the opportunity of this bug to ask you to send a request for > > review of the French translation to debian-l10n-french? > > This is weird, because I did not touch any templates when revving > up the package to the new upstream release, so it is accurrate. Feel > free to do it yourself. I'll update and review it. > In any case, this is my understanding of this nonsense bug to my > mind. No, this nonsense bug about this nonsense template is because Christian used a 4-days old list for the MBF about debconf abuse, and I updated the list today to find new ones. This template was not db_input'ed in the previous binary package of ircd-hybrid, and was therefore not included in the MBF. > Joshua, feel free to remove the wontfix tag and to fix it accordingly > to your belief of what you wrote back then as a native speaker. :) Note that I mentioned different problems here (I opened only one bug as they were for only one template, but seeing how you reacted once again, I should have done it another way). Here is a clear list for Joshua if he wants to fix it: - debconf misuse/abuse - use of a text obviously written for another code - malformed title (this was only in the patch: a sentence without a period does not make it a correct title) -- Thomas Huriaux
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
