Hi Carsten, (The headers and body were mixed up, and your Cc: [email protected] was apparently not taken into account. Quoting your message entirely so that the discussion flow is not too much broken on the BTS.)
Carsten Schoenert wrote (23 Nov 2012 23:46:45 GMT) : >> FWIW, the solution that is used for the iceweasel package IIRC, would >> be to ship the l10n bits in the same source package as icedove. > yes, that can be one solution. But we don't have actually the manpower > to do that. To do that we would not only have to completly rebuild > the build process of the icdove and the locales package. > > I don't belive that there is some free time do go on this. So because > of this there will be no > change on this. > > Normaly we try to check the most of new builded l10n packages, but right > now we can't check every single l10n file. > > If you can improve the build, just let us know. Thanks for the additional information! How about tagging this bug "help", then? Cheers, -- intrigeri | GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc | OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
