Hi Gerfried, 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 and don't get bashism as specify /bin/bash as the interpreter but remove that bashism.
> 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. > 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. I mean solve that bashism and find a better solution if any for that 'find' line in rules. > 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. 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. Regards, Laszlo/GCS -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
