Comment 17 for bug 645300
Revision history for this message
|
|
#17 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
bbfa235
(Get the code!)
(In reply to comment #14)
> Indeed, but the state of specspo is a reason to reject this package not allow
> it through.
I don't understand why you keep referring to specspo. It's separate data about packages that doesn't really have a way of being tied to upstream. If the spec files were translated in CVS, and then specspo extracted the translations from the spec files (which are actively translated) and packaged it separately, then I would agree. But it's a separate project with no infrastructure tie in.