Quoting Julien Valroff (julien@kirya.net): > Do you mind explaining what you expect from me exactly? > I had already applied some of the fixes introduced in your patches (but not > all). > I think the best is to make a new 1.14-4 package, including all the changes > which weren't already applied and which are still applicable (I see for > example a German translation which has been updated since then). > Do you agree with this or is there a common procedure in such case? Whatever way you do it, the point is getting back the changes I did in my two NMUs..:-). They are mostly translation updates. > > Julien (Cristau), what if Julien V. does this? Would the package be OK > > for an unblock? > > I also have made further changes since then, including i10n, but also > fixing a potential RC bug (the postinst script currently modifies a conffile). > Here is the current changelog: > * Recommend apache2 instead of apache > * Add the CSS directly into the CGI script (Closes: #513527) > * Update debconf templates translations: > + de - thanks to Martin Eberhard Schauer (Closes: #593570) > + it - thanks to Luca Monducci (Closes: #593719) > * Add versioned pre-dependency on debconf > * Use ucf to deal with conffile (thanks to Matthijs Möhlmann) > > Maybe the fix for #513527 is not suitable for unblock, what do you think? > I can revert it if needed. Well, it's better to first have an advice by the release team about the changes you applied when you took the package over. Most of them are packaging cleaning, etc. which are theoretically unsuitable for unblocks (but they were at least prepared and tested before the freeze...only my slowlyness to apply them has been the cause of these changes being blocked.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature