(resending; I think my mailserver had a grump. Sorry if you've got it twice)
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 05:59:49PM -0500, Jamie Strandboge wrote: > Meh, I didn't notice this before, sorry. 'An existing configuration > file' is not accurate as this message can be displayed if someone tries > to configure ufw via debconf but has configured ufw outside of debconf. > There are several files that are checked that will trigger this error. I > think this is more accurate: > + An existing configuration for ufw has been found. The existing rules > + must by managed manually. > + . > + You should read the ufw(1) manpage for details about ufw configuration. Ok, that's a sensible change, and so is changing ufw(1) to ufw(8), sorry I missed that :-) > Also I noticed in some of the proposed updates the textwidth is not > consistent. Is this intended? I'm rather new to debconf translations-- > am I able to change the textwidth without messing up translations? It makes the patches easier to compare while they're going through review, but changing them won't affect translations when you come to upload. There's one other point I'd like your opinion on: changing this line: - __Choices: Cups, DNS, Imap (Secure), Pop3 (Secure), SSH, Samba, Smtp, WWW, WWW (Secure) + __Choices: cups, dns, imap (secure), pop3 (secure), ssh, samba, smtp, WWW, WWW (secure) This affects your maintainer scripts though, which is why I haven't made it yet. If you are happy to change it, the consistent case is desirable but if it's a problem, it won't do any harm to leave it as is. Please let me know which you'd rather, and I'll send you a (hopefully) final patch to check over before starting the translations round. Cheers, -- Jonathan Wiltshire PGP/GPG: 0xDB800B52 / 4216 F01F DCA9 21AC F3D3 A903 CA6B EA3E DB80 0B52
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
