On 2006-12-11 22:42:20 +0100, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > * Peter J. Holzer wrote: > > Am I right in assuming that the patches submitted by Bas are what's > > included as 300_iconv.diff in the source package? > > Yes. > > > If so it looks like the last version (patch5) inadvertently disabled > > itself: > > Correct. > > > Or is there another reason why the patch is included in the source > > but disabled? > > Because it's not the way upstream decided to go. A package based on > the current upstream cvs is available in experimental.
True. And I was hoping it would make into testing before the freeze. But that hasn't happened, and I would prefer a not-quite-perfect slrn in Etch to a seriously buggy slrn in Etch. > > Can the patch be reenabled for Etch? > > I don't think it's a good idea, the problem Eduard reported in this > bugreport still exists. Which one? The original problem seems to be fixed. (I read mostly German newsgroups and haven't noticed any problems with correctly declared charsets (mostly iso-8859-1, iso-8859-15 and utf-8, but also others). I don't think I've seen the issue reported in http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=316919;msg=42 since applying the patch, either (but I remember seeing it before). Personally, I think slrn is usable with the patch but unusable without. So I would categorize this bug as both important and fixed (while I admit that the fix is not perfect and there is probably little point in perfecting it when upstream went a different route). hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder. | | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
