Hi Christian, On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 10:29:51AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > The recently added debconf templates do not follow some of the writing > guidelines you may find in the Developers Reference (I'm afraid I'm > responsible for these guidelines....usually called "DTSG" for Debconf > Templates Style Guide).
I've read that a while ago (when it was still being discussed I think).
> Please find attached a patch which implements most of the changes I think
> are needed. It also changes some wording for what I think is better English
> (but, well, my English is far from being perfect).
Same problem here.
> If you apply these changes or other changes to debconf templates, please run
> the "debconf-updatepo" utility. Then, as soon as the templates wording is
> carved in stone, please use the "podebconf-report-po" utility to request
> updates to translators. This utility is part of the "po-debconf" package.
Now that's a nice feature. I was getting lots of updates to the
translations while I was still rewording the questions all the time and
partially removing and adding questions.
> Feel free to ask me for any clarification about all this.
Going to...
> --- slapd.templates.old 2005-04-03 10:11:49.034547159 +0200
> +++ slapd.templates 2005-04-03 10:21:39.252309573 +0200
> @@ -2,85 +2,85 @@
> Type: boolean
> Default: false
> _Description: Do you want to omit the configuration of slapd?
> - If you choose yes here, no default configuration or database will be
> + If you choose this option, no default configuration or database will be
> created.
Agreed. The wording was not mine anyway but I did not get around to fix
this. How about:
_Description: Omit OpenLDAP server configuration
If you enable this option, no initial configuration or database will be
created for you.
?
> Template: slapd/dump_database
> Type: select
> Choices: always, when needed, never
> Default: when needed
> -_Description: Dump databases to file on upgrade
> - Before upgrading to a new version of the OpenLDAP server the data of
> +_Description: Dump databases to file on upgrade:
Hmm, that colon would look ugly in the dialog frontend, don't you think?
I'd expect the UI to add it when needed. Am I mistaken?
> + Before upgrading to a new version of the OpenLDAP server the data of
> your LDAP directories can be dumped to plain text files (LDIF format)
> - which is a standardized description of that data (LDIF stands for
> - LDAP Data Interchange Format).
> Template: slapd/move_old_database
> Type: boolean
> Default: true
> -_Description: Move old database
> +_Description: Move old database?
Why a question mark? That's a yes/no question which debconf options
should not be!?
> There are still files in /var/lib/ldap which will probably break
> - the configuration process. With this option enabled the maintainer
> + the configuration process. If you choose this option, the maintainer
s/choose/enable/ I'd say.
> Template: slapd/admin
> Type: string
> -_Description: Admin entry
> +_Description: Admin entry:
> The admin entry is the entry in the directory which has full read and
> write access.
Hrm, this should be removed as it is not used anymore.
> Template: slapd/suffix_change
> Type: boolean
Likewise.
> Template: slapd/upgrade_slapcat_failure
> Type: note
> _Description: slapcat failed during upgrade
> - When attempting to upgrade your LDAP directory there was an error.
> + An error occured durin the attempt to upgrade your LDAP directory.
Oh my, this description is incredibly wrong. :(
> Template: slapd/upgrade_slapadd_failure
> Type: note
> _Description: slapadd failed during upgrade
> - When attempting to upgrade your LDAP directory there was an error.
> + An error occured during the attempt to upgrade your LDAP directory.
> This error occured when performing the 'slapadd' which attempts to
Outdated as well. Ugh.
> Type: select
> Choices: BDB, LDBM
> Default: BDB
> -_Description: Which database backend would you like to use?
> +_Description: Database backend to use:
> While the BDB backend is the recommended choice of the OpenLDAP developers,
> the LDBM backend has proven to be more reliable for some Debian users,
> especially when the BDB database wasn't properly configured. When using the
Guess I should add "hdb".
Okay, enough food for thought ;)
Thanks for your feedback!
Torsten
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
