Re: backport s-nail: why I think it should be done?

[u34@net9.ga]

Hello,

On Thu, 29 Oct 2020 09:43:56 +0100, Micha wrote:
> Bugs in buster ought to be fixed in buster and are in itself no
> reason for a backport. Do you have pointers to the Debian bug> reports at least documenting the buggyness in buster? 

I am not sure I understand what exactly are bugs in buster.
I don't have pointers to Debian bug reports. But I didn't search for
such bugs. I won't be surprised if there are. In contrast, I do have
the authors statement:

    > On Debian you could upgrade to v14.9.19 from the "testing"
    > repository, but i do not know how to accomplish that, i only used
    > on release of Debian, that was 3.0 (Woody), a long time ago.
    > 
    > There are almost a thousand commits, and we do have unicode tests,
    > and they succeed.  So i do not think it happens in a newer
    version.

Copied from https://lists.sdaoden.eu/pipermail/s-mailx/2020-September/001378.html
, from about the middle of a not short mesaage. The way I understand 
it, the buster version have noticeble issues with i18n. One can

argue how useful it is with today standards. It is hard to fix
bugs in this situation. I do hope that warrants a backport.

As an aside, a backport was accepted at the beginning of November.
Thanks for all people involved.

--
u34