#. Type: text #. Description #. Menu entry #. Use infinitive form #: ../partman-lvm.templates:45 msgid "Delete volume group" msgstr ""For example, what’s this? Is this the option to delete a volume group you have selected, or is this the option to select a volume group and then delete it? Because the translation for each case would be different: Borrar o grupo de volumes versus Borrar un grupo de volumes . The difference is just a definite vs. an indefinite article. In fact, it could have been clear in the original English text:
msgid "Delete a volume group"or
msgid "Delete the volume group"Well, at least it has a note saying it’s infinitive, not imperative. I won’t translate it erroneously as if it read you, user, delete the volume group at once! . This message was paid for by the Platform For More Articles In Program Text.
echo -e "1\n2\n3" while read i; do
blah
done
You're running the whole while loop (not just its body) in a subshell,
just as if you'd written:
echo -e "1\n2\n3" (
while read i; do
blah
done
)
This is indeed occasionally annoying.
(BTW, any posix shell will behave the same way. I'm suprised zsh doesn't,
but then I don't generally write significant code for zsh since it's so
different.)
(PPS, can I delete Biella's drive now?)
for i in 1 2 3; do echo $i exit 1 done echo END ==> 1 echo -e "1\n2\n3" while read i; do echo $i exit 1 done echo END ==> 1 ==> ENDWTF? The result of the first -- the whole script exits entirely after the first iteration -- is what I expect. After all, I did not call break, but exit. The result of the second is totally unexpected. I understand that for and while each execute their iterations in a subshell, but why don't these behave in the same way? The fix here is a exit $? following the done keyword. Urks! Here's another one: the task is simply to output the number of 1's in the output (yeah, I realise grep -c can do this too):
cnt=0
echo -e "2\n1\n3\n1" while read i; do
case $i in
1) cnt=$((cnt + 1));;
esac
done
echo $cnt
==> 0
The reason? The while subshell receives a copy of the caller
environment, so when it updates $cnt, it only updates a copy of the actual
variable, leaving the original untouched. Similarly, a variable defined inside
the subshell won't be available after the while loop is done.
I cannot find a fix that's not bash specific.
Of course, it works fine when I replace the while loop by a for loop:
cnt=0
for i in 2 1 3 1; do
case $i in
1) cnt=$((cnt + 1));;
esac
done
echo $cnt
==> 2
Great, isn't it?
And I am not surprised that zsh gets it right. Why would anyone actually
want to use bash?
Update: here's Joey's explanation for the behaviour, and Clint's account
for why zsh does it right. I still can't figure out how to count the 1's.
Update ^2: Axel Liljencrantz sent in this message.
Update ^3: Alexander Sieck showed me that process substitution
("<(command)") instead of the pipe does work (for both cases):
while read i; do echo $i exit 1 done < <(echo -e "1\n2\n3") echo ENDOf course that's nowhere near POSIX compliance... Update ^4: my solution, which allows for spaces in the lines:
IFSOLD=$ IFS:- IFS=' ' # yes, a newline for i in $(the_command): do IFS=$IFSOLD ... doneWhat a hack!
The Debian project heavily relies on keysigning for much of its work. However, I think the question what the signing of a key actually accomplishes has not been properly addressed. In my opinion, from the point of view of the Debian project, a person's actual identity (as in the name on your birth certificate) matters very little; the Debian project does not actively interfere with a person's real life in such a way as to require the birth certificate identity (legal cases, liability issues, etc.). Moreover, it's rather trivial in several countries of this world to change your official name. In this context, even the claim that in the case of a trust abuse, your reputation throughout the FLOSS community (and the rest of the Internet) should be properly tarnished, does not stand, IMHO. From within the project, what matters is that everything you do within the project can be attributed to one and the same person: the same person that went through our NM process. The GPG key is one technical measure to allow for this form of identification. Its purpose is not, as Micah Anderson states, a means to confirm the validity of a government-issued ID. This brings me to a point which Andreas Schuldei nicely stated at the beginning of the thread (as did others throughout):If you do not care to read the entire thread, here are some of the better replies (in no particular order):I do not need an ID to identify martin, so i dont need to rely on his (forged or real) passport or other id from him in order to sign his key. If you did not know him before you should not sign his key (if your judgement was based on the unofficial ID).When Andreas signs my ID, he voices his trust in that I am who I claim to be, and he does so not because I presented him with an ID with the claimed name, but because we've interacted many times before. In that line, Gunnar's point stands:Maybe we should just drop holding KSPs, and fall back to the traditional method of "Hey, nice dinner we had yesterday. Say, now that you know me, my family and my history, would you like to sign my key as well?" - Signing for people you actually know, not just linkingIn my eyes, this is exactly what a keysigning is and should be all about: a statement of familiarity with a person, nothing more and nothing less. And as a project, we should either accept that, or find a better way to identify our developers. So what to do in this very situation? Should you revoke your signature from my key (or not even sign it in the first place)? Should you revoke or refuse signatures to all participants, because some claim the keysigning party to have been subverted? I think the answer to both cases should be: no, unless you have not previously known the person whose key you wish to sign. That's exactly what makes this decision very subjective, and a public call such as the original post rather unnecessary and missing the point.
A los efectos de lo dispuesto en la Ley Orgánica 15/99 de 13 de diciembre de Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal, eBay International AG informa al cliente que los datos personales que facilite en cualquier momento a eBay International AG, o a sus empleados ser n incluidos en un fichero automatizado de datos de carácter personal mantenido bajo la responsabilidad de eBay International AG, situado físicamente en las oficinas de su matriz, la entidad eBay, Inc en 2145 Hamilton Ave., San José, CA 95125, en Estados Unidos. La finalidad del fichero es la gestión de sus usuarios, la obtención de estadísticas diversas, la realización de prospecciones de mercado y el envío por parte de eBay International AG, de publicidad e información en relación con los servicios prestados, o servicios prestados por terceros y que estén relacionados con el uso de la plataforma, atendiendo a las preferencias que cada usuario haya configurado en la página web. eBay le informa de que tiene derecho a acceder a, rectificar, cancelar y actualizar su Información Personal, así como a oponerse al tratamiento de la misma de conformidad a lo dispuesto en la normativa aplicable mediante el envío de un correo electrónico a privacidad@ebay.es.
Next.