Bug#370505: xdvi: typing the search string after hitting Ctrl-F needs mousing
Florent Rougon <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Frank Küster <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Go ahead.
> Fine. Should the patch go to patch-tmp or patch-xdvi-370505 (or
> something else, patch-src?!).
I currently don't have an overview of how the patches once were
organised, were supposed to be organized, and are in fact disorganized.
>From the names I'd say: patch-xdvi-370505 is not a good idea, IIRC the
number is the xdvi bug number on sourceforge. patch-tmp makes sense
since it's already applied upstream. On the other hand we'll never get
a new xdvi source from teTeX, so creating a new patch won't hurt and
maybe make things clearer.
> I have other questions about patches.
> 1. Why does README.patches say this:
> A file may only be changed in _one_ of them. For quilt usage,
> check its manpage or README.Developers.
> The quilt docs make it clear that a file can be changed by several
> patches... Precaution?
No, either I was wrongly assuming that quilt couldn't do it; or this is
just a leftover from the handwritten patch system, and I didn't properly
adjust it when I added the remark about quilt.
> 2. quilt.html also says this:
> Documentation related to a patch can be put at the beginning of a
> patch file. Quilt is careful to preserve all text that precedes
> the actual patch when doing a refresh.
> Maybe that could be used instead of README.patches. I don't claim
> it would be better, I just don't know if you knew about this
> possibility when starting to document the individual patches in
I didn't know, or maybe README.patches started to exist before we used
quilt. I think it would probably be better to document it in the
Anyway, feel free to change what you think is appropriate; tetex-bin is
not mine ;-)
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich
Debian Developer (teTeX)