On Thursday 16 September 2004 08:53 pm, you wrote:
> > Actually, the diff between testing and t-p-u for aptitude is large
> > enough that I'm not really willing to approve it via t-p-u anyway. The
> > package in unstable, having been hammered on a bit, is ok assuming the
> > maintainer agrees that this version is suitable for sarge. The diff
> > seems to indicate that the translations aren't as up-to-date in sid as
> > they are in sarge, though. Daniel?
>
> And I found aptitude in unstable version 0.2.15.6-1 doesn't include
> #264716 fix.
That's quite true. t-p-u has the following diffs relative to unstable:
- .po updates
- Fixes to the command-line parsing to fix #264716 (which mainly bites
the initial installation); corresponding doc updates.
These changes are also in the upstream svn, along with a few fixes for
obscure segfaults. I want to get them into testing one way or another;
would you prefer that I upload a new version to unstable or work on the
t-p-u version? (my impression was that I had to push this through t-p-u)
The translators will be happy either way, since (assuming you don't mind)
I'll use this opportunity to upload new translations yet again.
I'm glad someone is looking into this, by the way -- I was about to send
off an email of my own asking why my (and, apparently, everyone else's)
t-p-u uploads aren't getting built on enough architectures to go in.
Daniel
--
/-------------------- Daniel Burrows <dburrows@debian.org> -------------------\
| I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure. |
\---- News without the $$ -- National Public Radio -- http://www.npr.org ----/
Attachment:
pgpsHdr9IQyXn.pgp
Description: PGP signature