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

Re: Would an (l10n) NMU of atlas interfere with the gfortran trnasition?

Quoting Steve Langasek (vorlon@debian.org):

> > So, an l10n NMU of atlas would make sense.
> No comment on the transition issues, but I hope you're fixing these l10n
> issues by removing all of the idiotic debconf templates *completely* from
> the package.  No one needs a library package popping up a high-priority
> debconf note to read the contents of /proc/cpuinfo to them, and my gorge
> rises every time I see one of these debconf notes from the atlas family of
> packages.

Well, this is a discussion I already had with Camm McGuire before
the etch release.

I already made him remove a lot of these notes. I was in favor of
removing all of them entirely but he wasn't keen for this. So, the
current situation is a compromise...

In these l10n NMUs, I have chosen a "be as less invasive as possible
wrt maintainers' choices" policy...while still fixing some issues
that have nothing to do with l10n (mostly trivial lintian
warnings...sometimes a few RC bugs, see gnarwl).

The potentially controversial issues are left aside, particularly when
the topic was discussed in the past with the maintainer...and even if
I disagree with him|her. I don't want to become the maintainer for
these packages.

This is the case for atlas so you'll understand that removing the
debconf notes is not in my current plans. The only thing that could
convince me is the package being orphaned.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: