Comment 11 for bug 1101836

Hey Gunnar,

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 02:47:23AM -0000, Gunnar Hjalmarsson wrote:
> […]
> Personally I wouldn't mind to drop the md5sum check/deletion part. One
> reason I didn't (so far) was out of respect for possible Debian and
> Ubuntu policies. But that's probably faulty logic - I guess that adding
> the disable line doesn't violate any policies more than deleting a file
> in another package. Maybe less.
>
> I'm also disinclined to differ from the Debian version more than
> necessary, so I'd prefer a consensus before proposing that change.
> Hopefully we'll end up with an im-config package that is identical with
> the Debian one - it's a 3.0 (native) package. On that topic version 0.20
> has been released at Debian.

Yes - all of these problems exist on Debian too, although they way they
might be addressed there could be different I suppose. The basic issues
are the same though.

>
> A while ago Osamu mentioned an idea to apply patches conditionally...
>
> As regards updating im-switch... Added an im-switch task as a reminder.
> OTOH, I know that Aron and Osamu consider im-switch to be 'dead' and a
> candidate for archive removal. In the light of that, is it really worth
> it to spend time with SRUing that change?

I think so - it should just be a simple change to the config file (and
my offer to sponsor still stands), so not a very difficult change to
SRU. It may be dead (and should therefore be removed from Raring after
switching Kubuntu over), but we do have it in stable releases still. IMO
the fix to im-config should be considered as a fallback if the user
didn't fully update before moving to raring.

Cheers,

--
Iain Lane [ <email address hidden> ]
Debian Developer [ <email address hidden> ]
Ubuntu Developer [ <email address hidden> ]