Thoughts about separating language packs

[Carlos Perelló Marín]

On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 16:01 -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:

Hi, I'm late to this discussion (I didn't saw it was started, sorry).

[...]
 
> > >   We wouldn't want a security update to cause some language support to
> > >   disappear, for a package which hadn't yet been built with the modified
> > >   build environment
> > 
> > Most security updates certainly won't touch translations, but if they
> > do, then we really have a problem.
> 
> Right, they won't; the condition was that the package had not yet been built
> with the language-pack-enabled build environment.  But given your plan of
> rebuilding everything, that is a moot point.


You should take care that some security updates could be to fix a broken
translation (not sure if that will count as a security update or just a
bug fix).

I have seen bugs in .po files that breaks the application because an
error from the translator that forgot a "%s", he put a "%s" where it
should be a "%d" or an extra "%s" that is not handled by the printf like
function.

If that could be taken as a security bug, will we upgrade that language
package?

Cheers.

> 
> -- 
>  - mdz

-- 
Carlos Perelló Marín
Ubuntu Warty (PowerPC)  => http://www.ubuntulinux.org
Linux Registered User #121232
mailto:carlos at pemas.net || mailto:carlos at gnome.org
http://carlos.pemas.net
Valencia - Spain
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20041105/8d062e41/attachment.pgp