Santiago Vila <sanv...@debian.org> writes: > Hi. Since this is standard procedure, I've just filed the bugs: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian...@lists.debian.org;tag=gettext-0.23 > > but with the caveat that I don't know when I will able to do the upload > for unstable. At this moment I don't want to think about NMUs yet.
Yay! I'm happy to help with NMUs if needed. I think getting gettext 0.23.x into trixie would be good. > Note for Guillem: I've included your suggested fix in the bug template. I don't think we should patch upstream code for things that aren't clear upstream bugs. Patching upstream code in Debian packaging has a maintainance cost and some risks. As far as I understand, the reason for the FTBFS's isn't due to upstream misuse of gettext, it is a symptom of how Debian packaging is (mis-)using autotools. I suggest generally to not patch upstream code without reporting it upstream. In this case, I don't think filing upstream bugs is a good idea: it seems more appropriate if we fix this via debian/rules instead of putting fixes to Debian-specific problems into upstream code (especially since the fix changes upstream semantics wrt gettext so isn't guarantee to be what upstream prefer). Some of the packages seems to already do strange things in debian/rules related to gettext and autotools, so I think at least some of these are packaging bugs and not upstream bugs. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
