Updated Portuguese translation for crossfire's debconf messages. Translator: Américo Monteiro <a_monteiro@gmx.com> Feel free to use it. For translation updates please contact 'Last Translator' or the Portuguese Translation Team <traduz at debianpt.org>.
forcemerge 748716 750810 reassign 748716 po-debconf severity 748716 normal tags 748716 - patch retitle 748716 False debconf po templates reported for crossfire thanks Hi. As discussed at http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-l10n-devel/2014-June/003372.html , po-debconf somehow reports crossfire as having debconf templates, despite having none. Please reassign if po-debconf isn't the right package responsible for these.
Quoting Kari Pahula (kaol@debian.org): The problem is similar to postfixadmin: the original tarball *does* contain debconf templates and a debian/po/ directory. The scripts that generate the material for l10n status pages do *not* cope with the fact that the templates file as well as debian/po/ are actually deleted when the Debian patches are applied. It would help a lot if the upstream tarball had no debian/ directory or, at least, no debian/templates and debian/po/ files and directories. Anyway, I blacklisted crossfire from the status pages which should become effective....once the "gen-material" script works again as expected (it is actually broken for a not-yet-know reason for about 10 days).
retitle 748716 l10n scripts should not look at upstream debian/ of source/format 3.0 (quilt) packages submitter 748716 kaol@debian.org thanks That's every source/format 3.0 (quilt) package. It would do well for the l10n scripts to take that into account. It would. I can ask the upstream to do that but it's not something any maintainer has direct control over, and this isn't (IMHO) a good reason for repackaging upstream tarballs. Not with 3.0 (quilt) taking care of the situation. Thank you. This should take care crossfire's case, but I think this situation points to a more generic solution and I'm retitling the bug accordingly.
Looks like the problem that caused #855475 is already reported as bugs #748716, #750810, #751685, #761092, #766265, if i'm to believe their title "l10n scripts should not look at upstream debian/ …"
I'm closing this bug report (#857525) because it seems you've translated a part of upstream that doesn't exist in the debian packages. This is the same situation as https://bugs.debian.org/855475, which i also closed. I think the fact that you did extra (unnecessary) labor was caused by a bug in the l10n scripts tools (https://bugs.debian.org/748716), which needs attention. sorry that you did work that didn't need doing!
I'm closing this bug report (#876173) because it seems you've translated a part of upstream that doesn't exist in the debian packages. This is the same situation as https://bugs.debian.org/855475 and https://bugs.debian.org/857525, which i also closed. I think the fact that you did extra (unnecessary) labor was caused by a bug in the l10n scripts tools (https://bugs.debian.org/748716), which needs attention. sorry that you did work that didn't need doing!