On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:52:03PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > I REALLY REALLY would like to see translated apt in woody. > > And i cannot understand why apt-i18n is not installed so we could > > test it. Adding apt-i18n to unstable will not break anything, but > > interested developers can test this before adding it to real apt.
> Because it is a bad idea? The people who made it still have not produced a > complete patch against normal APT, so instead of doing that they just > opted to try and force their work into the archive. Since when have ftp-master taken it upon themselves to act as gatekeepers, preventing bad ideas from entering the archive? I suspect that this particular package is being held to a much higher standard than most, for no other reason than because it has 'apt' in its name. I would be quite disappointed if this were the case -- if the package doesn't cause massive hemorrhaging of the archive, why should it not be allowed in, even if it is regarded as bad design? Does anyone really think there's no badly designed software in the archive already? Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
pgpiL5DH1e6rv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
