Re: Bug#357020: dict-wn: could not be installed when running alternative for dictd
- To: Mark van Eijk <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Debian Quality Assurance Team <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#357020: dict-wn: could not be installed when running alternative for dictd
- From: Andreas Tille <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:11:11 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.62.0603151708000.29310@wr-linux02>
- In-reply-to: <20060315154139.GA10518@stud.tue.nl>
- References: <20060315111245.32077.44535.reportbug@localhost> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603151234100.29310@wr-linux02> <20060315125829.GA5396@stud.tue.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603151416420.31210@wr-linux02> <20060315135658.GA22444@stud.tue.nl> <20060315141907.GA31330@stud.tue.nl> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0603151533070.29310@wr-linux02> <20060315154139.GA10518@stud.tue.nl>
I just want to hear Debian-QA opinion whether serpento is worth
keeping or whether its sense (i18n problems of dictd which are known
to be solved) is not valid any more and we should drop the package.
Thanks for your opinions
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006, Mark van Eijk wrote:
An NMU would have to solve:
* #218254 (pidfile handling in initscript broken)
* #277925 (force-reload does not work)
As far as I can see, the latter is a result of pidfile handling being
broken (#218254). It seems that the pidfile handling can be fixed by
using the patches attached to #218254. (These patches have been
available since 2003-10-30, which should tell you something about the
responsiveness of the package maintainer.)
If you combine this with your hackish fix, then you solve #356796 and
#356909 in the process.
To summarize, if you decide to NMU the package, you should be able to
fix #218254, #277925, #356796, #356909 and #357020. This shouldn't be
too much work if you start out with the NMU-version already available in
the repository (serpento 0.4.1) and check out the patches that were
supplied (see #218254).
If I can be of any assistance, please let me know.