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

Re: Transitioning to Mozilla Firefox 1.0PR

* Johannes Rohr (j.rohr@comlink.org) wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I see that five firefox locale packages are still not updated and keep
> firefox out of testing:
> mozilla-firefox-locale-eu (0.9+0.7-1)
> mozilla-firefox-locale-ko (0.9.1) (btw: this looks like a native package
> which it should not be)
> mozilla-firefox-locale-nb (0.9.2-4)
> mozilla-firefox-locale-sv (0.9.3-1)
> mozilla-firefox-locale-tr (0.9.1-1)
> None of these packages has testing candidates. Four out of five fall
> behind even the firefox version that is is Sarge at present (0.9.3).
> Three of those packages can be easily brought up-to-date within five
> minutes: Please download the latest langpack from ftp.mozilla.org and
> rebuild your package. Here are the URLs:
> (Those are labelled nightlies, anyway they are for firefox 1.0)
> Also, please check the contents of the installed-chrome list e.g.
> debian/50xx-locale and sync it with the actual contents of the jar
> files, as there have been some changes recently, at least in the de
> locale package.
> The other two (eu and tr) should be removed from testing unless there is
> an updated langpack available elsewhere.
> Eric: Should we upload with priority=high to be ready for Sarge ASAP?
> Will you upload 1.0?

I will upload a version 1.0, probably tonight, worst case later in the
week. Mike Hommey is doing some excellent work on it right now, but
there will be some tweaks to the extension manager that may require
locale and extensions packagers to make a few changes (don't worry, if
anything you should have to remove things). Stay tuned. 

Eric Dorland <eric.dorland@mail.mcgill.ca>
ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: hooty@jabber.com
1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C  2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6

Version: 3.12
GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ 
O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ 
G e h! r- y+ 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: