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

Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n

On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:14:31PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote:
> You should have requested to tag it directly "wontfix", you would have saved
> yourself some work ;) Or was the discussion with upstream done in the
> meantime?

Yes, discussion was done with upstream in the meantime.

> I also fail to understand why the xterm program should be unusable by CJK
> people when the fix is so lightweighted. I may well be missing the point,
> but I'd like to have more details if possible.

I'll ask Mr. Dickey if he'd like to share his reasoning with the list.

> Branden, could you please provide more information about why this patch is
> not good, and what should be changed in it to make it acceptable? 

It was an upstream decision which I elected to respect.

> Or if you have other ideas to make xterm usable to CKJ people not willing to
> use UTF, could you enlight us, please? For example, what are the arguments
> used by upstream to convince you that this patch was bad ?

Since they came in private mail, I feel it is better to let Mr. Dickey
make his case, if he chooses to.

> I am sorry to whine that way, but I'd really like to understand the
> situation here. I'd be more than happy if your answer contains nothing but a
> bunch of pointers.

The bug submitter had already contacted the upstream maintainer of
XTerm, and the patches had been rejected by him.  Apparently, the
submitter's goal was to get Debian to fork from upstream after the exact
same change had been rejected upstream.

I think KUBOTA-san's effort to sneak his changes in through the
backdoor, as it were, without apprising me of his earlier failed efforts
to get them accepted upstream, was an underhanded and dishonest thing to

When the Debian-JP Project merged with Debian, the understanding was the
Debian-JP maintainers would work with upstream authors and their fellow
non-JP Debian developers in an open and communicative fashion, instead
of just forking everything behind a wall of silence.

In the instant case, I feel that pledge has been violated.

It's happened again, just within the past day, with "xft-cjk"; while the
person who inadvertently uploaded it to auric's queue wasn't a Debian
Developer (the upload was rejected), there is probably at least one
Debian developer who is aware of these patches.  Has there ever been a
bug filed against xft about the issues which that patch seeks to
address?  No.

Our Social Contract says "We Won't Hide Problems".  I do not feel that
that principle is being upheld very well by some of our developers.

That KUBTOA-san has a patch for xterm that was rejected by upstream was
a problem.  He didn't tell me of his patch's past history with the
upstream maintainer.  He hid it instead.

There are patches for Xft that putatively fix some CJK localization
issues.  Those issues have not been brought to the attention of the X
Strike Force.  Any Debian Developer who was aware of them and did not
communicate this information to the debian-x list (or via a bug report)
is hiding the problem.

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |      Please do not look directly into
branden@debian.org                 |      laser with remaining eye.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: