[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Make Debian better (Re: Two Debian 3.0 reviews at Slashdot)

On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 02:45:44PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:15:16PM -0700, Michael Cardenas wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 12:49:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 09:07:48AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > > 
> > > >  - broken home/end keys in bash in xterm (even in Woody)
> > > 
> > > You'll have to persuade the upstream bash/libreadline cabal that
> > > actually supporting DEC VT100 and later terminal emulation is a
> > > worthwhile thing to do, instead of half-assing their way through it.
> > 
> > Isn't it the downstream packager's job to take upstream and configure
> > it in a usable way for most users? It seems that if the patches
> > discussed earlier in this thread work, then whining about upstream
> > attitudes is just an excuse for not applying them. 
> You need to know whereof you speak before you shoot off your mouth like
> this.
> * VT220+ terminal emualtion is a stateful thing.  Certain keys have a
>   one meaning in application-keypad mode, and another meaning in normal
>   mode.  Terminal control sequences can (and will) move the terminal in
>   and out of application-keypad mode.  /etc/inputrc doesn't know how to
>   express "if the terminal is in application-keypad mode, issue this
>   escape sequence when the Home key is pressed; else issue this other
>   escape sequence".

Is it safe to say that most people are not concerned with the home and
end keys when using keypad mode? If not, maybe a sensible approach
would be to offer a debconf question about this issue. 

> * Sometimes Debian developers don't have the skills or knowledge
>   necessary to fix a problem.  Hypothetically, it may be the case that
>   simply expect them to do a good job *packaging* software?  I think
>   not; not unless you're willing to underwrite their educational
>   expenses.

notice that my comment was prepended with "if the patches discussed
earlier in this thread work". 

> Whining about Debian developers whining about upstream implies that you
> expect Debian developers to fix every problem.  For instance, I suppose
> you expect me as XFree86 package maintainer to "configure XFree86 in a
> usable way for most users" that don't even use video cards that XFree86
> supports.

Well, since there was no patch offered in this thread to do so, no, I
don't expect that. 

> If *you're* offended by the home/end issue, perhaps *you* should stop
> complaining and put some of your effort to resolving the limitations of
> bash/libreadline when it comes to keeping track of the terminal's
> application-keypad state.

I'm not, because I don't use xterm. I was speaking about the general

> Finally, you should be careful to ensure that your words don't get
> interpreted as coming from the domain identified in the From: line of
> your message, or the organization identified in your .signature, if your
> words aren't to be taken as position statements from that company.

Thanks, will do. 


michael cardenas       | lead software engineer, lindows.com
hyperpoem.net          | GNU/Linux software developer
people.debian.org/~mbc | encrypted mail preferred

"How terrible to watch a man who has the Incomprehensible within his grasp, doesn't know what to do, and sits down playing with a toy called God."
- Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Attachment: pgpJmnsFklKD_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: