On 2023-01-11 21:53:14 [+0100], Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Hello Sebastian, Hello Helge,
> Well, this is not correct. See, e.g., > https://packages.debian.org/bullseye-backports/all/manpages-de/filelist > > The man pages are there. yes, in backports. Not in the "regular" package. > Of course, only those we have (had) in manpages-l10n, but de > definitely. > > We just took our probably final "snapshot". I.e. in the next backport > version, the man page as it was on monday in backports (or stable, if > backports was empty) is used as base. So this will be the final > release in bullseye-backports from our side. > > I don't know what the best solution is here. I see several options, > all not very nice: > > 1. xz-utils does not ship translated man pages in backports. But then > the translated man page is out of sync with the package (it is a > pity that the upload to backports has not been done, already). > > 2. I manually remove the translations in my final backport. Then there > is no file conflict. For this case, please tell me which man pages > I should delete. And the final version shipping it in backports > from my side would be "4.16.0-3~bpo11+1". > > Please tell me which version is the first backport version of your > package containing the translations, and I will set the appropriate > file relationships myself; however, I don't know if all upgrade paths > will work, but we can try. > > With "all upgrade paths" I mean the user can have backports for > either package or none. Okay. Let me get to this and then I will talk to you again once the release team gives an ack. Sebastian
