On Mon, Mar 05, 2007 at 06:20:25PM +0100, sean finney wrote: > On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 01:35 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Yes, and I'm afraid the code changes in 1.8.30 aren't something I'm willing > > to let through; the shell code is subtle enough that my eyes are likely to > > start bleeding before I'm able to give it a thorough review. > aw. the bugs that the changes fix are pretty subtle themselves, fwiw, > but one in particular[1] could be rather nasty and would be nice to have > fixed for the long haul in etch. i don't suppose i get any credit for > having it in unstable for 40 days or so without any bug reports? would > you be willing to accept a fix for [1] by itself without the quoting > fixes? > in any event, would an update to t-p-u with the new translations from > 1.8.30 (with or without some of the fixes from 1.8.30) be acceptable? > [1] the bug where package installation can fail globally if it's > installed at the same time as a package that depends on it and the other > package's config script runs first. An upload to t-p-u for the l10n updates would be ok. Fixing the dpkg order-of-operations corner case also seems like it would be ok, but I haven't been able to pick out which change in the package is related to this bug, so I can't say for sure yet. :) -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
