Re: New Packages (i18n version of APT)
Am 6.04.02 um 21:52:03 schrieb Jason Gunthorpe:
> Because it is a bad idea?
As Steve pointed out, good or bad idea is not really a good reason for
delaying packages, at least it has not been so far. Furthermore I don't
think it is a bad idea, for the following reason:
You, Jason, did not add full i18n support to APT, and were not willing
to accept my patches for woody. This is OK, as APT is a very central
package and has been in different shades of freeze for quite some time.
Thus the only way to get i18n support for APT into woody was to create a
new package. I am very willing to throw it away once it's not needed
> The people who made it still have not produced a complete patch
> against normal APT, so instead of doing that they just opted to try
> and force their work into the archive.
What is this? Face it, it's a lie. I have produced a complete patch -
otherwise apt-i18n would not be possible. The patch is complete insofar
as it works reliantly and fits nicely into the build process.
You did not quite like it? That's OK with me. But what's not OK is that
you do not provide any meaningful feedback. You said you want different
domains for the utilities and the library; I asked why, you didn't
answer. I provided another patch adding >200 newly marked translatable
string, you said some of them weren't appropriate; I asked which, you
Don't say I didn't make the patch to your likings when you are not
willing (or able) to tell others what exactly your likings are.
|=| Michael Piefel
|=| Humboldt-UniversitÃ¤t zu Berlin
|=| Tel. (+49 30) 2093 3831
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org