Re: Status of the shadow package
Quoting kcr@debian.org (kcr@debian.org):
> Well, no, if you tell a package maintainer that it "has been decided" that
> you're going to use infrastructure that the maintainer refuses to rely on,
> that is most certainly a takeover.
Hmmm, the point that you don't want to use the Alioth infrastructure
was indeed missing for me. Oherwise, we would have considered this in
the discussions we had. So, please, do no understand "it has been
decided that". The only conclusion at this time is that we highly
depend on this package...:-)
BTW, I've just seen Ruben report about the missing spanish
translations....Looks like the i10n part needs some more work. I
finally found a way to better handle the inclusion of gmo files from
upstream without editing too much files.
We're still left with some additionnal man pages which don'tmake it
into the debs, however....
Indeed, my current concern is mostly the l10n handling. As the package
is part of d-i statistics, translators are very active on it as you
may have seen. So, at least an easier way for us/them to commit their
work would highly help.
I already do l10n commits for several d-i related packages (aptitude,
popularity-contest...) and one more wouldn't be that much work.
The proposal for alioth-maintained package was mostly because all d-i
translators already have commit accounts there, which would help going
further by giving them commit access the way we do in the d-i core
project.
You seem to be a bit disappointed about the way Debian is currently
going, mostly because of release issue. I may understand this feeling
of course....but this shouldn't probably prevent all of us to take
care of the current work.
For sure, the shadow codebase is maybe messy (I don't have for skills
for having a good advice on this and certainly not for a rewrite), but
it is currently part of the whole system....so though a rewrite is
maybe a way to explore, it will certainly be a long trip before it may
replace the current code.
Reply to: