On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Adeodato Simó <d...@net.com.org.es> wrote: > * Martin-Éric Racine [Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:34:29 +0200]: > >> >> I don't think broken 0.99g5-6 reached testing. > >> >> And the "bug" #511290 it was trying to fix is controversial. The >> >> purpose of the changes is to allow some obsolete spelling variants to >> >> be considered as valid. > >> > Okay, I'll take this as an indication that no action from the release >> > team is needed unless further notice. > >> Actually, Stepan's got that one backwards: 0.99g5-7 *restores* >> support for the contemporary spelling. Support for the traditional >> spelling never disappeared. > > That's not really relevant. What is interesting is whether Stepan's > assessment that 0.99g5-5 is not affected by this issue is correct or > not.
As far as I've been told by users, it is affected too. Again, I myself use traditional spellings, so I've never been affected by this issue. Martin-Éric -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
