On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 08:04 +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > A few weeks ago, I went on fontconfig during the NMU campaign to fix > longstanding l10n issues (#361259 and the like). > > Given the relative importance of this package, I took an unusual care > to check whether I wouldn't disturb other plans by the maintainer. > > Unfortunately, up to now, I haven't got any answer from the > maintainer. I assume that Keith is indeed very busy on other tasks and > can't answer right now. I'm sorry, I didn't see anything fontconfig related in my mail... > Simultaneously, the D-I team mentioned some needs for a new fontconfig > version ; which I'm unfortunately not deeply awar about. Right, I've been trying to make time to push out an upstream 2.4.2 that will fix some issues in the code as well as integrate all of the l10n issues that I've received. I just got a new Spanish translation a few days ago. > The l10n stuff is definitely not release critical but the other > changes may have some importance for the graphical installer. As far as I know, the graphical installer just needed a utility moved into the .udeb package. > So, is there something that we can do? Unless I get a very late > objection from fontconfig maintainer(s), I'll go for the l10n NMU > anyway. I can push out a 2.4.1-based package that just has the debian fixes and then go look at doing a 2.4.2 upstream release and related 2.4.2 debian package when I get a bit more time. -- keith.packard@intel.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part