Re: Conditional Recommends
I demand that Scott Kitterman may or may not have written...
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 08:17:51 AM Darren Salt wrote:
>> I demand that Carsten Hey may or may not have written...
>>> The third example with indirections would have advantages if one l10n
>>> package contains the translations for multiple packages (which seems to
>>> be planned).
>> ... which is something which, as upstream for a few packages, I'm not keen
>> on (AFAIK, Ubuntu do this). Particularly if, as seems to be the case with
>> Ubuntu, this leads to translations not being passed upstream or, if they
>> are, they're passed without proper attribution (which I will reject with
>> If they think that upstream should go and fetch translations from them,
>> well, I don't want to know: again, no obvious way to get
>> properly-attributed diffs.
> That seems more than a little orthogonal to the question at hand. KDE
> ships translations this way,
Not really relevant that they do: it's more that the process is working for
them. But then, they don't exactly have upstream maintainers/authors to send
patches on to. Debian does; while there is no requirement to do that, it's
good practice to do so.
> so translations for multiple packages is not just a code word for doing
> something that may benefit a derivative.
Hmm? I think that you're confused about what I wrote...
Basically, I just don't want this turning into what Ubuntu does (or what I
see of it), if it happens at all.
| Darren Salt | linux or ds at | nr. Ashington, | _ ASCII ribbon
| using Debian | youmustbejoking | Northumberland | ( ) campaign against
| GNU/Linux | ,demon,co,uk | | X HTML e-mail
/ \ www.asciiribbon.org
Look under the sofa cushion; you will be surprised at what you find.