I'm not sure if this is the right path to address this nor if this is a
problem to be solved at all (beyond what has already happend, of course).
Please note that I haven't prepared any potential version yet, this is
pure clarification if work is needed (which would follow).
I recently received a report (Debian #1136135) that manpages-l10n
contained undistributable files *in the sources* (those were not
shippped in any binary package).
I fixed the problem upstream and released a new version to unstable,
which has migrated to testing (4.30.2-1). Soon Tobias will release a
version to Trixie backports.
Is there any need to make an upload to trixie-pu (or even bookworm-pu,
..)?
As stated earlier in [1] I believe that including manpages-l10n in
point releases is quite a good idea, even though it completely fails
the criteria (unfortunately I haven't seen a reply on this idea yet).
If such an upload is indeed wanted, then I can prepare one, at least
for Trixie it should not be any problem. If you have pointers to docs
what to consider/how to proceed, this would be appreciated.
If I do not see any response on this (as on [1]), I simply do not
perform any action (except the usual backport upload).
[ Reason ]
manpages-l10n contained for the last ~7 years undistributable files,
because one of our sources mixed them in without us noticing.
Therefore, the last Debian releases contained those files *in the
sources* (not shipped in any binary package). You can find details in
[2].
[ Impact ]
The Debian source in the archives contain files which are not
distributable. There is no user facing difference, as binary packages
do not ship those files (nor their translation).
[ Tests ]
I implemented two controls upstream:
1) The directories for those files no longer exist, hence pulling the
files fails (i.e. they are discarded).
2) I'm building up a licensing check upstream. This is work in
progress, last week this covered > 83% and work is progressing. So
hopefully in a few weeks all files are covered and new files will
be deteced (and checked).
[ Risks ]
There are more and improved translations in the current version (i.e.
4.30.2-1) then they were in version 4.27.0-1. And this is pure
documentation, no code. And we align with the source text, i.e. the
translation for Trixie fits to the pages shipped in Trixie (with
backports, though).
Doing updates for oldstable (and older) would be more tricky, but with
Tobias I probably could manage to resurrect the last version we
shipped from our respective Salsa branch and apply the fix for #1136135.
In this case, the previous paragraph applies.
A full discussion can be found in [1].
[ Checklist ]
[x] *all* changes are documented in the d/changelog
[ ] I reviewed all changes and I approve themA
I do review the German translation and our build and check pipelines
catch all formatting errors. However, as I don't speak any other
language than German and English, I cannot review the content for the
other translations.
[ ] attach debdiff against the package in (old)stable
I could prepare such a diff, but it would be *huge* and probably of
little use. I could remove all changes in the actual translation, so
you could review the packaging changes. Regarding the actual bug
report, the follwoing change is relevant:
index 9f8afff60fb..fb31dbf9d84 100755
--- a/upstream/archlinux/update-manpages.sh
+++ b/upstream/archlinux/update-manpages.sh
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
# Start with clean directories and no leftover links.txt
rm -rf man* links.txt