Quoting Rafael Laboissiere (rafael@debian.org): > Is it worth losing time with the atlas3 package? It has been superseded by No idea. If you say so, you may be right. I certainly have no clue about which package that's still in unstable and is lagging for l10n is useful or just plain old crap that should be removed.. > the atlas package, which participated to the gfortran transition. There are > very few reverse dependencies on atlas3 in unstable, mostly deprecated > packages from the g77 era. I would not be surprised if atlas3 is removed > from testing before the lenny release. No problem for me but until it has effectively been removed, I consider it to be fixed. If it needs to be removed, I suggest you file the BR to ask for its removal. > I looked at the l10n bugs filed against atlas3 (#414375, #426974, #414940, > and #469545) and I think they could be easily adapted to the atlas package. > Note that the debconf templates of the atlas package need some fixes. I > just filed a bug report about this (#472366). Well, *please* don't encourage the maintainer to break templates without providing fixes to translations...or a chance to translators to fix their files, particularly on giant packages like atlas which take ages to compile on autobuilders. Applying the patch you provided in #472366 would break them. This case is one of the very few cases where fixing PO files with sed is perfectly OK.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature