Paul Gevers wrote: >> This could be turned into a list as: > > Yes, this is something like I had in mind (but couldn't really turn my > head around). I assume this remains one block for the translators, right?
As I understand it each field (e.g. the entire Description) is one translation block. Hence the occasional use of special flags to indicate "don't translate this paragraph". >> (I've put them in the same order as the Choices list, but it might >> make sense to reorganise those.) > > Seems like a good idea. So, alphabetical order, "abort, ignore, retry, retry (...)"? >> The above version is about as compact as I can make it; the following >> alternative version is clearer, but probably uses up too much space. > > You mean it will scroll of a regular screen? Do debconf questions have a > limit in that? You add 4 extra lines this way right? I don't think there's a hard limit, but a wall of text that overflows the "page" just seems like something we should avoid if we can. Four extra lines take upgrade-error just over the size of a default xterm. [...] >> My revised patch assumes this was just some sort of copy/paste error >> and rehomogenises the templates. > > Great. However the line "This will usually leave this package without a > functional database." in the remove-error doesn't make sense. That was > "This will usually leave the database and user privileges in place." > which makes more sense. Ah, *I* missed that bit. But... wait, why does it have a paragraph saying "you have two options" and then offer four? -- JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-l10n-english-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150311004150.gb14...@xibalba.demon.co.uk