[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: installation-guide is marked for autoremoval from testing


Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> Holger Wansing <linux@wansing-online.de> (2018-05-10):
> > Debian testing autoremoval watch <noreply@release.debian.org> wrote:
> > > installation-guide 20170614 is marked for autoremoval from testing on 2018-05-31
> > > 
> > > It is affected by these RC bugs:
> > > 897529: installation-guide: FTBFS
> > 
> > This is because of the "ID xxx-yyy already defined" validation errors",
> > which has already been reported in 
> > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=880210
> > and which was already fixed in svn repo (oh, this is now git).
> > 
> > Maybe we should do an upload to get this fixed in the archive?
> That would be a good idea (along with an extra commit to update Vcs-* to
> salsa, see my latest reply in the salsa thread).


However, there is much more work to do here, "svn" and "alioth" is often 
mentioned in the manual.
That would need some more time (at least for me).

maybe the workflow of xml-based translations is affected by git migration?
Tracking the up-to-date-status of those files is handled with svn revision
numbers, which are no longer available now IMHO.
How to deal with this?
Is it worse to overwork the relevant scripts, to make them work with git
hashes, or should we just drop xml-based translations altogether now?
Most translations have switched to po already, from the up-to-date
languages only Czech is left on xml.

Christian, any opinion on this?

> > However, that would be an upload for Buster (there's "Bump release
> > name to buster" in the changelog).
> I'm not sure why that would be an issue? The manual documents the buster
> installation process (which shouldn't have changed too much?), but the
> upload targets unstable as usual?

I remembered some trouble with the debian-refcard, where the publication
on the debian.org website was affected, because the website directly uses
the latest uploaded package version.
But the installation-guide is handled differently here apparently, so
that's most probably not a problem here...


Created with Sylpheed 3.5.1 under 
	D E B I A N   L I N U X   9   " S T R E T C H " .

Registered Linux User #311290 - https://linuxcounter.net/

Reply to: