Hi again! * Laszlo Boszormenyi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-16 20:20:36 CEST]: > On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 20:14 +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > You clearly totally missed the point. You did *not* fix the release > > critical bug (which should had been your first priority) > > I wanted to discuss the other changes, how you made the dfsg source > tarball
With the included and fixed script. > and don't get bashism as specify /bin/bash as the interpreter > but remove that bashism. It's the more straight-forward fix, and bash is essential. Let me remind you again that we are in release stage and any change that involves deeper changers might very well end up with a reject by the release team. Being conservative is the way to go currently. > > but added more > > changes like an update to the POT-Creation-Date timestamp?! What's the > > sense in that? > > Err? I didn't touch that, will check how that happened. Well, it's changed in the diff you uploaded. > > Sorry, but I will go ahead with the NMU for fixing the RC bug that I > > was about to upload now, and no thanks for adding more workload for me > > to rebase my changes on your uploaded version ... > > Don't just NMU, I do want to fix that RC bug as well after some > discussion. You didn't react for months to the initial bugreport pointing out the printer rom issue. You didn't react for a week when Andreas raised the RC bug. You started to react on my first mentioning of proposing a NMU to fix the issue. You now did rush in an upload including even more changes but didn't fix the release critical bugs. Did I miss anything important of the history with respect to the current situation? > I mean solve that bashism and find a better solution if any > for that 'find' line in rules. Solving the bashism and a better solution for the find line in rules isn't the problem at hands at all. The problems is that Debian ships ROM images for which it doesn't have any rights, and I'm sorry to sound so disappointed but you haven't given any response that makes me think you are interested to get that fixed in a timely manner. > > I hope you are happy > > with that, and are well aware that the bigger the diff gets the harder > > it is to get the change approved by the release team. > > I am not happy, I think it's you who miss the point. It wasn't me rushing in an upload that did not touch the real problem of the package, at all. > I know that a bigger diff is more difficult to get approved. But I > would like to solve everything in a better way and get 100% sure how > you generated your dfsg source. There is no magic involved in how I generated "my" dfsg source. I did apply nothing less than the patch I sent and run the mangle-source.sh script. That's all behind it and I would have hoped you to be able to figure that out as package maintainer, at least Andreas was able to do it. Thanks, Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
