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

Re: gettext, autopoint and cvs

On Sat, 15 May 2010, Adam D. Barratt wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:44 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Today a new upstream version of gettext has been released, and I would
> > like to move the autopoint functionality to the autopoint package as
> > planned.
> > 
> > Do I have the permission from the release managers to do this and
> > raise the severity of those bugs to "serious"?
> They're not RC.  However...
> > The bugs are trivial to fix, there has been enough time to fix them, and
> > I think it's about time to perform the next step.
> ... I agree with this.  If you would be willing to be responsible for
> it, I'd be happy to make fixing the gettext/cvs situation a release
> goal; that would also make the remaining bugs NMU targets.


Sorry, I missed your mail (I don't read -release very often, please feel free
to Cc me). I am reading it after uploading gettext 0.18-1 today.

This is from the changelog:

   * Changed autopoint so that it uses git instead of cvs. As the autopoint
     package was created to avoid gettext to depend on cvs, we are not going
     to make gettext to depend on git now. Moreover, as packages using
     autopoint and still having cvs in their build-depends would not work
     anymore even if autopoint is still kept in the gettext package, this
     effectively puts an end to the transition period: packages using
     autopoint must build-depend on autopoint now.

However, as I was asking for permission to make those bugs RC, and I
believed there was no reply, I've made a random bug against gettext
(#581637 seemed appropriate) to be of serious severity to prevent it
from entering testing.

This means if we were to release squeeze as stable today, everything
would work. I think this allows us to not consider the bugs as RC.

However, gettext 0.18 will not enter testing until the remaining bugs
are fixed.

So, to answer your mail: Yes, I feel responsible for this, and I will
care about NMUs if required, but I'm not in the mood of making NMUs yet.

For now, I'm going to ping the affected maintainers via the BTS.


Reply to: