[Amavisd-new-debian-devel] the debian l10n template feature

[Harald Jenny]

Hi

On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 11:26:11AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Harald Jenny schrieb am Freitag, den 09. September 2011:
> 
> > Hi Alex
> > 
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2011 at 10:32:20AM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > Harald Jenny schrieb am Donnerstag, den 08. September 2011:
> > > 
> > > > Hi Alex
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 10:06:51PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > > > Harald Jenny schrieb am Tuesday, den 09. August 2011:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 09:46:57PM +0200, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > > > > > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh schrieb am Tuesday, den 09. August 2011:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 09 Aug 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > during the work on 2.7.0 I again stumbled about the feature of
> > > > > > > > > /etc/amavis/<lang>/. I would have to provide a patch for 2.7.0 for getting
> > > > > > > > > the feature working again, as there are several new templates in the code.
> > > > > > > > > Additionally I have to say that I dislike that diverging from upstream thingy
> > > > > > > > > as it is error proven.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > We implemented it before upstream did, I think.  That caused the divergence.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I am not sure if somebody is really using that "feature", so I would opt in
> > > > > > > > > removing it. Any oppinions here?
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I used to ship pt_BR translations in the package, and our l10n team could
> > > > > > > > translate the templates if we asked them to and made them aware of the
> > > > > > > > templates (since they're not gettext/autopoint stuff).  The lang/ way of
> > > > > > > > doing things used to make it MUCH easier to handle l10n updates.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > But I certainly don't object to switching to whatever upstream does in
> > > > > > > > 2.7.0, as long as it doesn't make it impossible to deal with when you
> > > > > > > > actually use it or distribute l10n files.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > l10n'd notifications are a killer feture.
> > > > > > > unfortunatly there is no real solution inside amavisd. Just the l10n snippet
> > > > > > > from debian. Marc added several templates over the last years but he didn't
> > > > > > > updated that l10n snippet so not every of the template can be accessed via
> > > > > > > the l10n version.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > So it seems I have to deal with that patch, update it and give marc a patch.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As our company also uses the l10 feature I would be more that willing to help
> > > > > > you with this work - how can I help you?
> > > > > Get extract-upstream-en_US-templates.pl (should be done) in sync with the
> > > > > template in __DATA__
> > > > 
> > > > Done - capitalization of spam changed, pushed the change to master repository.
> > > > 
> > > > > and sub read_l10n_templates($;$) from amavisd.
> > > > 
> > > > You mean adding the new template files to read_l10n_templates or what exactly?
> > > > 
> > > > > All
> > > > > templates should get extracted with useful names
> > > > 
> > > > They seem not too bad:
> > > > template-auto-response.txt
> > > > template-dsn.txt
> > > > template-problem-feedback.txt
> > > > template-release-quarantine.txt
> > > > template-spam-admin.txt
> > > > template-spam-sender.txt
> > > > template-virus-admin.txt
> > > > template-virus-recipient.txt
> > > > template-virus-sender.txt
> > > > 
> > > > > and amavisd should catch
> > > > > them up in read_l10n_templates.
> > > > 
> > > > Attached a patch proposal, is this sufficiant?
> > > > 
> > > > > If this is done create a patch a forward it
> > > > > to the amavis mailinglist.
> > > > 
> > > > Can you confirm that what I've done is correct and complete?
> > > Narf. I haven't reviewed this yet. But please don't commit into master if is
> > > not your package and you want a review.
> > 
> > My commit just extends your work on the extract-upstream-en_US-templates.pl
> > script and applies the results from it to the two old template-spam-* files,
> > IMHO there is no real need to review these changes as there basically update
> > some wordings in the two files but if you disagree theses changes can be
> > reverted. The patch I attached was produced in a local temporary respository.
> > But if you feel more comfortable I can in the future just send patches in to
> > allow for previous review by others.
> Just create a branch and ask for a pull. 

Ok will do this for future work.

> 
> Alex

Harald