On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:37 PM, Rodrigo Rivas <rodrigorivascosta@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Karol Blazewicz <karol.blazewicz@gmail.com>wrote:
I also found https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/libreoffice-sid/ - ??? language pack for LibreOffice https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/libreoffice-tt/ - TT ? language pack for LibreOffice
What's this?
I've checked it out of curiosity and it looks like TT is Tatar [1] and Sid is Sidama [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatar_language [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidama_language
Yup :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639-3 helps decipher language codes. On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 01.08.2013 18:02, schrieb Karol Blazewicz:
Upstream urls: I found that dozens of packages in the repos have an upstream url that prints 'Page Not Found' in one way or another. Should I open bug reports for these packages or does nobody care about it? I could also check if the source is still available. If opening bug reports is OK, should I limit creating the reports to e.g. 10 a day? If I find a url that works, I will include it as a suggestion for the maintainer.
Creating bug reports is the way to go here.
OK. Should I open a single report for the base package e.g. libreoffice-i18n and list which split packages need to be fixed or open a report for each split libreoffice-* package?
It actually doesn't matter how many you create, the maintainers will fix them when they fix them.
Sure. It's hard not to spam the bugtracker RSS feed since it provides only 10 or 15 last reports - no idea if anyone cares anyway :-)