[Debian-hebrew-common] user-he summary

[Shachar Shemesh]

Baruch Even wrote:
>> Was the package permanently removed? If so, we should remove it from the
>> user-he dependencies altogether.
>>     
>
> This is strange, the koffice-l10n source package removed the Hebrew
> package but there is no mention of it in the changelog.
>   
The ftp-masters site lists removal of all koffice-i18n-* packages with
the stated reason of "automatic cruft removal". I don't know what is
behind this.
>> It's a cost effectiveness question. Since nothing depends on user-he, I
>> don't see what the risk is. Since user-he is already in Etch, I can see
>> plenty where the damage is.
>>
>> In any case, it's not like we are doing any major changes here. We are
>> just improving the dependencies. We have not introduces the GUI tool
>> (yet?). That, I agree, should not go into Etch.
>>     
>
> The point is that we had the package in this form for a while now and
> besides the koffice issue there were no bugs or complaints. Changing it
> now means that we commit to a different way that will not be tested
> sufficiently by users.
>   
Well, there was one complaint from me, and another from Amos
(http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-hebrew-common/2006-October/000226.html).
We all agree it's wrong. Personally, I think the package dictates KDE on
the user, which I view as impolite to degrees I find hard to explain
(and I am a KDE user, but I acknowledge that some can't stand it).
> I don't think the changes you propose are a big issue, but I'd also
> rather do them after etch is released.
>   
Personally, I think it warrants an immediate upload (these are wrong
dependencies), but I won't force the issue. In order not to turn a
polite conversation into an argument, I'll leave it up to one of the two
of you to upload the package if you think it justified. My changes are
already in SVN as agreed.
> Cheers,
> Baruch
>   
Shachar