On Sat, Jan 20, 2007 at 03:43:53PM +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2007 at 07:44:47PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > >>> Hmm, there's nothing particularly important about the dak package shipped > >>> in > >>> Debian, it's not used on Debian infrastructure.
> >> OK, fine then. > >> Would you guys prefer /me to wait for dak 1.0-8.2 to enter testing > >> after you hint it or should I just upload my 1.0-8.3 l10n NMU? > > No preference. > I'm not convinced that the dak package should be included in etch. Probably I > should file bugs about the issues (feel free to do so): if you install dak and > just enter on all questions (thinking you accept all defaults), the whole > system is chown'ed to the same user as it puts '/' after nothing as the > installation path... another thing is that the current version in unstable > still *only* (I wouldn't object at all being able to both use the old and the > new names) uses the old names (women's first names while the new names are > more descriptive of what the command intends to do) for the commands which > should be fixed before being included in a stable release IMHO. So you think the dak package is unsuitable for release as a whole? Please do file an RC bug for this so it can be discussed in the proper place. (Pending this, I'll probably get around to reviewing the current dak changes in a day or so.) -- 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]
