Re: backport s-nail: why I think it should be done?
Am 07.11.20 um 14:28 schrieb email@example.com:
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. [...]
[...] 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.
If the package in buster is no longer useful, let's fix such issues to
restore its usefulness. That's all I tried to say. Requesting pointers
to Debian bugs is just the first step down that path.
As an aside, a backport was accepted at the beginning of November.
Which is great, so thanks for starting the thread to make it happen.
Still, pure 'buster'-users won't see a fix, so it could be worth trying
to fix the issues in buster too. Even though I admit in this case it
might not be worth the effort...
Anyhow, thanks for reaching out to make Debian better.