Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 07:14 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Sure, will be clearer.
>
> Can be improved with:
>
> [...]
>
> (this way, "${descriptions}" will not be added as a "string to
> translate" with the risk of some translators translating the varaiable
> name, which is a very common mistake)
Well, done :). Hopefully that should be it for the templates, now.
When I mentioned that there was some work left on the i18n side, it also
meant the software themselves, which don't have any of the traditional
translation stuff (gettext and friends) for mostly error messages at the
moment. Though I think we can live without them for now ; but I'm using
the exact same strings as debconf anyway, so the day we decide to look
into this, it should be pretty easy to deal with the translations
themselves.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1334167638.3477.14.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name):
> Template: cdebconf/frontend
> Type: select
> Choices-C: ${choices}
> Choices: ${echoices}
> # :sl6:
> _Description: Interface to use:
> Packages that use debconf for configuration share a common look and
> feel.
> You can select the type of user interface they use.
> .
> ${descriptions}
>
> and
>
> Template: cdebconf/frontend/none
> Type: string
> # :sl6:
> _Description: None
> 'None' will never ask you any question.
Sure, will be clearer.
Can be improved with:
Template: cdebconf/frontend
Type: select
Choices-C: ${choices}
Choices: ${echoices}
# :sl6:
#flag:translate!:3
_Description: Interface to use:
Packages that use debconf for configuration share a common look and
feel.
You can select the type of user interface they use.
.
${descriptions}
(this way, "${descriptions}" will not be added as a "string to
translate" with the risk of some translators translating the varaiable
name, which is a very common mistake)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 07:53 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > Having thought about it a bit more today, I believe moving the template
> > for cdebconf/frontend/gtk to cdebconf.templates is the right thing to
> > do. Although it would put the text in the "wrong" package, it would be
> > in its dependency, and still wouldn't be displayed unless cdebconf-gtk
> > is installed. It would also avoid for us to ship an unused template in
> > cdebconf-gtk-udeb and the consequences in terms of size.
> >
> > Any objection to moving it ?
>
>
> That doesn't have a great importance for the l10n magic, so feel
> free..:-)
I (obviously) moved that one. I also noticed some changes, and that you
seem to have some concerns about making it easy for translators to make
mistakes. If it's not actually causing you more trouble, I can suggest
converting the 'none' frontend to the same scheme as the others. It
would then look like :
Template: cdebconf/frontend
Type: select
Choices-C: ${choices}
Choices: ${echoices}
# :sl6:
_Description: Interface to use:
Packages that use debconf for configuration share a common look and
feel.
You can select the type of user interface they use.
.
${descriptions}
and
Template: cdebconf/frontend/none
Type: string
# :sl6:
_Description: None
'None' will never ask you any question.
What do you think ?
Regis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1334082189.3477.7.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
It would be nice if it didnt Conflict: with debconf (debconf-2.0) because no one needs such problems early in install. Cant it run side-by-side debconf (ie, user can theoretically run either) ? It's easy to make side by side apps but i know: sometimes not. Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): Has anyone had time to look into it ? It would be nice to get http://sourceforge.net/projects/dep-trace/ ( examples/ has script for improved depandancy order dpkg working , will work do magic for complex lists of source builds all at once ) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f845a6a.3080...@cox.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:01 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: > > > I just marked the templates as translatable and part of the newly > > introduced "sublevel 6" (that isn't counted in statistics). > > Thanks, that's awesome ! It's now in place and, strangely, I don't seem to have messed up..:-) Next night (UTC), the translations that are in sublevel 6 should flow into cdebconf. > Having thought about it a bit more today, I believe moving the template > for cdebconf/frontend/gtk to cdebconf.templates is the right thing to > do. Although it would put the text in the "wrong" package, it would be > in its dependency, and still wouldn't be displayed unless cdebconf-gtk > is installed. It would also avoid for us to ship an unused template in > cdebconf-gtk-udeb and the consequences in terms of size. > > Any objection to moving it ? That doesn't have a great importance for the l10n magic, so feel free..:-) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 23:01 +0200, Christian PERRIER wrote: > I just marked the templates as translatable and part of the newly > introduced "sublevel 6" (that isn't counted in statistics). Thanks, that's awesome ! > I slightly changed the description of the GTK interface, which I found > too technical, in order to stay in line with the current complexity > level of D-I debconf templates. Even better. > It is likely that this messes up things somewhere, maybe even in D-I > localization outside cdebconf (as changes to introduce this new > sublevel are not trivial) but I'll handle problems in case they > happen..:-) > Once the new strings end up in sublevel 6, I'll populate this sublevel > with existing translations of debconf as a few of these strings are > indeed existing in debconf as well. Having thought about it a bit more today, I believe moving the template for cdebconf/frontend/gtk to cdebconf.templates is the right thing to do. Although it would put the text in the "wrong" package, it would be in its dependency, and still wouldn't be displayed unless cdebconf-gtk is installed. It would also avoid for us to ship an unused template in cdebconf-gtk-udeb and the consequences in terms of size. Any objection to moving it ? Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1333577193.2095.17.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Quoting Régis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > Yes, I saw your email this morning and thought "it's not going to work". > Happy to let you handle it, that was actually my hope :-). I'm mostly > interested in knowing whether my approach is sensible or should be reverted. > > You can have look at cdebconf.templates and cdebconf.configuration, this > should give you a pretty good idea of what I did (or at least intended to do). > These are actually not part of the udebs, the only one that is is the > description for the GTK fronted, though it could probably be moved to > cdebconf.templates anyway. I just marked the templates as translatable and part of the newly introduced "sublevel 6" (that isn't counted in statistics). I slightly changed the description of the GTK interface, which I found too technical, in order to stay in line with the current complexity level of D-I debconf templates. It is likely that this messes up things somewhere, maybe even in D-I localization outside cdebconf (as changes to introduce this new sublevel are not trivial) but I'll handle problems in case they happen..:-) Once the new strings end up in sublevel 6, I'll populate this sublevel with existing translations of debconf as a few of these strings are indeed existing in debconf as well. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Christian PERRIER wrote: >Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > >> Has anyone had time to look into it ? It would be nice to get >> confirmation whether I should revert to the original debconf >templates, >> or go ahead and make the "new" ones translatable. > > >I'd prefer handling this myself if you don't mind, to coordinate >updates with translators (see the mail I just wrote about string >freeze). > >Can you just point me the the version of the *.templates file which >you're considering so that I can check the final impact on D-I l10n >files? Yes, I saw your email this morning and thought "it's not going to work". Happy to let you handle it, that was actually my hope :-). I'm mostly interested in knowing whether my approach is sensible or should be reverted. You can have look at cdebconf.templates and cdebconf.configuration, this should give you a pretty good idea of what I did (or at least intended to do). These are actually not part of the udebs, the only one that is is the description for the GTK fronted, though it could probably be moved to cdebconf.templates anyway. Régis -- Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse my brevity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/510fe2d9-d1c8-45fc-92ca-2cb014b84...@email.android.com
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > Has anyone had time to look into it ? It would be nice to get > confirmation whether I should revert to the original debconf templates, > or go ahead and make the "new" ones translatable. I'd prefer handling this myself if you don't mind, to coordinate updates with translators (see the mail I just wrote about string freeze). Can you just point me the the version of the *.templates file which you're considering so that I can check the final impact on D-I l10n files? signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Hi again, First 2 races done, I've managed to get some sleep, so I'm back for a week until I switch to China time... > > Aren't texts identical to debconf ones? I was thinking so, so I never > > paid attention to this very strongly. > > > At least they should be similar, so we should reuse debconf > > translations so that translators do not start from scratch. > Anyway, if some people could review what I did in cdebconf.config for > the frontend selection, and tell me whether to go ahead with it, or if I > should revert the the single static description, that would be great ! Has anyone had time to look into it ? It would be nice to get confirmation whether I should revert to the original debconf templates, or go ahead and make the "new" ones translatable. Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1333488676.6354.29.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 14:56 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Regis Boudin wrote: > > That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the > > config > > script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it > > before. > > Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst. > > FWIW, I saw the same thing; debconf was using dialog and cdebconf > defaults to text. Arg, found it ! I've been had over by debconf making a backup copies of the database files and writing completely new ones instead. So the discussed solution to have the debconf database files symlinked to the cdebconf ones doesn't work because as soon as debconf is run, the symlinks are replaced by actual files, and we end up with 2 different databases. Will have to think about it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1332608232.14662.43.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Hi, Apologies for the delay in replies at the moment. Providing support for the Australia last weekend, and Malaysia this weekend, so I'm mostly sleeping on my free time... On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 19:08 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: > Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > > > An obvious one for you should be the complete absence of i18n for > > cdebconf itself. It would be nice if someone could review what I did > > for > > the frontend selection to make sure it's ok before marking the > > templates > > as translatable. > > Aren't texts identical to debconf ones? I was thinking so, so I never > paid attention to this very strongly. > At least they should be similar, so we should reuse debconf > translations so that translators do not start from scratch. No, I'm not that mad. I tried to make it so the text can be reused, so the "conversion" only consists of a copy/paste of each individual name and description. The idea behind the change was to only display frontends that are available, and have the possibility for potential out-of-tree frontends to carry their own entirely. Although I changed the Dialog/Readline/Gnome names to Newt/Text/GTK, it was purely out of laziness, and I would be happy to revert them. I was convinced I had explicitly asked if you could review it, but can't find any trace of it, so I must have forgotten, my fault entirely. Anyway, if some people could review what I did in cdebconf.config for the frontend selection, and tell me whether to go ahead with it, or if I should revert the the single static description, that would be great ! Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1332601050.14662.23.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 14:56 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Regis Boudin wrote: > > That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the > > config > > script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it > > before. > > Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst. > > FWIW, I saw the same thing; debconf was using dialog and cdebconf > defaults to text. Hmm, ok, I definitely have something wrong, there. I tested it quite a bit and it worked when installing cdebconf with DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF set, I should have made sure making the switch after installing it worked as well. Thanks, I'll try to look into it. Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1332183982.7528.7.ca...@x200s.malip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Regis Boudin wrote: > That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the > config > script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it > before. > Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst. FWIW, I saw the same thing; debconf was using dialog and cdebconf defaults to text. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Regis Boudin wrote: > >Perhaps it's time to get some wide testing? This could be done by > >temporarily making debconf default DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1 > > Sounds like an idea. the various scripts will probably need an > additional > check for cdbconf's existence, though, since it caused me trouble I was assuming we'd make debconf depend on it, although this would technically violate its Priority value. For temporary testing it seems ok. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > An obvious one for you should be the complete absence of i18n for > cdebconf itself. It would be nice if someone could review what I did > for > the frontend selection to make sure it's ok before marking the > templates > as translatable. Aren't texts identical to debconf ones? I was thinking so, so I never paid attention to this very strongly. At least they should be similar, so we should reuse debconf translations so that translators do not start from scratch. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 13:40:22 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: Regis Boudin wrote: Hi everyone ! That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded cdebconf 0.159. Although some features are still missing, it should actually be usable. Well, I've been using it on my main machine for a month with 2 daily updates, and a few "dpkg-reconfigure -a", and all blocking issues I've seen since August have been identified and fixed. Also, interesting milestone I believe, with a script modified only to add cdebconf to the required packages if DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF is set, I could debootstrap a chroot, and compile a KDE application with cowbuilder. Perhaps it's time to get some wide testing? This could be done by temporarily making debconf default DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1 Sounds like an idea. the various scripts will probably need an additional check for cdbconf's existence, though, since it caused me trouble Independant of that, it would be good to get cdebconf to the point it does not depend on debconf. That would certainly be very nice. The main reason to keep the dependency so far has been because when some scripts were causing trouble I could switch back easily to finish installing packages. Also because I'm not certain how to handle the transition. Anyway, thanks for the feedback. Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/0f778ec85ddf9b79fbf16f0eccb90...@imalip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 08:16:56 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote: Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): Hi everyone ! That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded cdebconf 0.159. Time for me to switch..:-) Oh, so I'll start breaking people's machine, now ! First glitch I had : I did setup DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1, then I ran "dpkg-reconfigure samba" and.I ended up with the "text" interface and not the "newt" one. Running "dpkg-reconfigure cdebconf" (which indeed defaulted to "newt" for the interface) fixed the problem. That's a bit odd, the initial setup and conversion is done in the config script, and I would have expected debconf to have already run it before. Unless I got it wrong with my almost empty postinst. Other glitches will come later on (though I don't do much interactive use of debconf as my laptop is mostly updated with apt-cron). An obvious one for you should be the complete absence of i18n for cdebconf itself. It would be nice if someone could review what I did for the frontend selection to make sure it's ok before marking the templates as translatable. Regis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d338707f7576bc979d7edd228cfbf...@imalip.net
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Quoting Regis Boudin (re...@boudin.name): > Hi everyone ! > > That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded > cdebconf 0.159. Time for me to switch..:-) First glitch I had : I did setup DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1, then I ran "dpkg-reconfigure samba" and.I ended up with the "text" interface and not the "newt" one. Running "dpkg-reconfigure cdebconf" (which indeed defaulted to "newt" for the interface) fixed the problem. Other glitches will come later on (though I don't do much interactive use of debconf as my laptop is mostly updated with apt-cron). signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: cdebconf 0.159
Regis Boudin wrote: > Hi everyone ! > > That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded > cdebconf 0.159. > > Although some features are still missing, it should actually be usable. > Well, I've been using it on my main machine for a month with 2 daily > updates, and a few "dpkg-reconfigure -a", and all blocking issues I've > seen since August have been identified and fixed. > > Also, interesting milestone I believe, with a script modified only to > add cdebconf to the required packages if DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF is set, I > could debootstrap a chroot, and compile a KDE application with > cowbuilder. Perhaps it's time to get some wide testing? This could be done by temporarily making debconf default DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF=1 Independant of that, it would be good to get cdebconf to the point it does not depend on debconf. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
cdebconf 0.159
Hi everyone ! That's it, after a month of testing on my main machine, I uploaded cdebconf 0.159. Although some features are still missing, it should actually be usable. Well, I've been using it on my main machine for a month with 2 daily updates, and a few "dpkg-reconfigure -a", and all blocking issues I've seen since August have been identified and fixed. Also, interesting milestone I believe, with a script modified only to add cdebconf to the required packages if DEBCONF_USE_CDEBCONF is set, I could debootstrap a chroot, and compile a KDE application with cowbuilder. R. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1331759873.2288.25.ca...@x200s.malip.net
