On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:49:59AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:01:03AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > But anyways, why don't we keep the old directory as a symlink to the new > > Because the dir is still poplulated by files (well, symlinks) to ease > partial upgrades. We can't jus throw them away right now unless wchange > all dicts again... > > And anyway, who should own this symlink? dictionaries-common > might have been a candidate, but it's far too late now (I'll now go throug > the hassle of NMUing most dicts myself). > > Why didn't you suggest that when the plan was outlined :)
I did. > > one, so that it doesn't make backporting harder ? > > That is a reason, but then again you can also make backports of this > with the current thing (ifeqs in rules, debian/rules control target before the > build, ..) How exactly is this supposed not to be making backporting harder than having nothing to do ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
