Hello, On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 02:30:39PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > > I've already asked for nano-utf8 package, but it has not > > > appeared yet, it seems. Junichi, I think we've talked about this a few times on IRC, I think you knew what my plans were. > > I tried to extend the current nano package, but is a mess. See recent > > slang1-utf8-dev bug report. This problem with the new slang packages was already discussed when the NMU was uploaded, right? I also see it's a major problem that the -dev packages can't coexist... > Okay, I repackaged nano from scratch, which did me cost much less time > and nerves. It is now in the DELAYES/5day incoming queue, called > nano-bf-utf8_1. If someone has a better idea about nano, feel free to > stop this package, send me a note and make a better one. This is the first time I hear about an NMU against nano. I'm an active maintainer and anyone can ask me about its status on IRC. Anyway, I see nothing in delayed. If it's taking some time, it's for a reason: 1) I wanted to give slang some time to see if there were problems with that NMU. I only want to update nano once, for the following reason: 2) I need to upload nano 1.0.8 to woody-proposed-updates. That is, uploading to woody directly, not going through unstable, as unstable has 1.1.6. This means I have to build nano in 11 architectures by hand, and this takes some time. Anyway, if you cleaned up nano's debian/rules, I guess I can have a look to see if I want to adopt the new thing. But I don't think it's such a mess... Jordi -- Jordi Mallach Pérez || jordi@pusa.informat.uv.es || Rediscovering Freedom, aka Oskuro in || jordi@sindominio.net || Using Debian GNU/Linux Reinos de Leyenda || jordi@debian.org || http://debian.org http://sindominio.net GnuPG public information: pub 1024D/917A225E telnet pusa.uv.es 23 73ED 4244 FD43 5886 20AC 2644 2584 94BA 917A 225E
Attachment:
pgpIM5Kx8Rf7J.pgp
Description: PGP signature