Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi Mike, On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 21:00:57 +0000 Mike Gabriel <mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de> wrote: > On Mo 29 Apr 2019 21:28:54 CEST, Paul Gevers wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 08:35:24 +0200 Mike Gabriel > > <mike.gabriel@das-netzwerkteam.de> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >> I am aware that mate-utils 1.20.2-2 never migrated to testing because of > >> this, so I ask for a specific exception here to unblock mate-utils. Thanks! > > > > In unblock bugs we request a debdiff against what is currently in > > buster, your debdiff is against the previous package in unstable. As you > > mentioned this includes a new upstream version, however at this stage of > > the freeze we hardly except new upstream versions. As I noted a big > > chuck of the delta is in translations, to make any change with this > > unblock please prepare a *reviewable* debdiff (using filterdiff and > > explaining which options you used) and explain the differences. > > > > I suggest you also already think about a targeted fix via > > testing-proposed-updates. > > > > Paul > > I fully get the policy aspect of the above. A .debdiff against > mate-utils in testing is attached. It is massive, but its massiveness > is 99.9% l10n related. (The help pages of all the mate-utils apps have > been localized via Transifex). In the release team we have tools to generate this diff as well, that is how I noticed the huge amount of l10n. So it wasn't exactly the *full* diff that I was asking, although I may have not been 100% clear. The full diff is not review-able, so I will not unblock this as is. Please filter the diff with filterdiff (please tell us which options you used) to remove all the l10n stuff you deem irrelevant for this discussion. Then, look at the remaining debdiff and explain in detail what the remaining changes are, such that we can judge it. Remember, we get quite a lot of unblock requests and we don't know you package. Please help us judge it. > Please consider, that the MATE upstream people did a 1.20.x point > release series for many MATE components, mate-utils amongst it. Only > problem was the FTBFS in pt.po of gsearchtool. (I apologize for my > slowness in finding the FTBFS fix!!!). > > So, all MATE components in buster are from the last upstream point > release, it would be good to have mate-utils 1.20.2-3 in buster, too, > so all MATE components align well and in harmony as intended by > upstream. What will break if we don't align the packages? I guess nothing, otherwise you should probably fix the relations between the packages to include the proper versions. Paul
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature