On 2023-01-09 21:13:16 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Sebastian,
Hi Helge, just to correct your previous email, the bug report was/is from Raphaël Halimi not me. I just pinged you. > > Interresing. manpages-fr and manpages-de from manpages-l10n in bookworm > > does not ship $LANG/man1/xz.1.gz but that one in bullseye-bpo does. > > This does does not look right. > > It is. The man pages always mirror what is present in the > distribution. When the translation of the man pages move to xz (from > manpages-l10n), version build for unstable of manpages-l10n also > removed the translation. > > However, the in bullseye-bpo the translation is *not* in xz-utils, and > hence it is shipped by manpages-l10n. Oki. That means if I intend to upload xz-utils to Buster with translated man-pages than I need to check with you first? > Technically, we treat debian-unstable and debian-backport as if they > were two different distributions (say arch and fedora). > > What got lost (and I will investigate this later this week, maybe > tomorrow) are the correct package relations. I have a vague idea, but > I will check. And the next upload (including the one to bpo) will have > the correct ones. Since "recently" xz provides translated man-pages and sid is not affected. My understaning is that the bpo version of man-pages gets a breaks statement against xz. If so that would >= 5.2.7. Should I reassing the bug to manpages-l10n or do you do it yourself? > > I could try to upgrade xz in bullseye to a newert version with > > translated man pages but IMHO the testing and bpo version should remain > > unchaned. Did I miss something? > > Remove manpages-fr, then continue with the upgrade and after you are > in bookwork, install manpages-fr again. Raphaël: ^^ > Sorry for the inconvenience. No worries, thanks for the quick response. > Greetings > > Helge Sebastian
