On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:29:46 -0400 David Prévot <taffit@debian.org> wrote: No. This needs upstream changes in the package which could invalidate the patch to this bug. I know I omitted to put this into the bug report - I did mean to start this back in March when the upstream changes went in. Source: drivel Version: 3.0.4-1 Distribution: unstable Urgency: low Maintainer: Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 05:22:28 +0000 Closes: 661439 Changes: drivel (3.0.4-1) unstable; urgency=low . * New upstream release * [i18n] French runtime messages translation (Closes: #661439) > The drivel Debian package, which you are the maintainer of, has > pending bug reports which include translation updates or fixes > for translation handled by gettext, namely bug number 661439 (and > maybe other similar bugs). > The i18n team is now hunting the very last bits of missing localization Currently, French is already at 100% in Debian for drivel. It's not missing any localisation in the current version. > So, sorry for this, but the radar beeped at your package and here am I > with an NMU intent...:-) Denied. :-( There is more to this than may appear - drivel is not a native package and these are not debconf messages. > Such changes are always harmless, which explains why I safely consider > building NMU's for such issues even though they're obviously non critical. Not true. This change would require upstream changes (which are already applied upstream). http://drivel.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/drivel?view=revision&revision=867 > If you intent to upload yourself, please discuss with me. I propose > handling a translation update round and I can handle it myself for you. > That will just require a few days. > In case I upload an NMU, I will subscribe to the Package Tracking System > for this package and follow its life for 60 days after my NMU in order > to fix any issue potentially introduced by my upload. > > Let me know, as soon as possible, if you have any kind of objection to > this process. > > If you'd rather do the fix yourself, I will of course leave the package > alone. Same if you have reasons not to do the update now. The upstream changes require a new call for translations, at which point the translation provided with 661439 may turn out to need changes anyway. This is the problem with translations provided outside of an upstream string freeze. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpOkAnGs0OJN.pgp
Description: PGP signature