Re: Status of the shadow package
Quoting Sam Hartman (email@example.com):
> If you were annoyed that it took too long to deal with translation
> NMUs then you probably should have asked for permission to make
> arbitrary 0-day NMUs for translation purposes.
Hmmm, wel I think I did ask. At least, I announced all NMU's and took
the lack of answer as an agreement.
So, it may seem to you there's no problem. However, I'm not
comfortable in doing NMU's without explicit agreement and keep this
situation going on. This was basically the reason I mailed again Karl
> But as far as I can tell, Karl has dealt with the non-translation
> problems in a reasonably timely manner over the past year, although
> perhaps not as fast as you would like in the last two months.
Well, the non-l10n things are OK to me.
One one my fears also wasthat these l10n NMU's require a lot of work
for building the appropriate patches to unsure that any of you both
working in parallel to another build, for non-l10n issues, can still
be able to re-apply the changes I made in my NMU's.
All 28.* NMU's were very huge and required a lot of work for building
patches. This is what I would like to avoid by asking for some kind of
co-maintenance. We are already working this way as, in the last 2
months, I made these l10n NMU's. The progress we can currently make is
by using appropriate tools.
A simple commit access to an existing CVS or SVN repository would
highly help. See, for instance, the work done on aptitude or
popularity-contest packages. With agreement of their respective
maintainers, I'm currently dealing with all l10n-related issues : as
soon as a l10n bug is reported, I verify it, apply it to the
respository, update the debian/changelog file and mark the bug as
The maintainer(s) are still responsible with the package uploads and
everyone is happy.
I hope you'll get my point : basically offering the maintainers, that
is you and Karl, a way to just forget about l10n issues