Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
From: Branden Robinson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:52:47 -0500
> It was an upstream decision which I elected to respect.
Ok, I understand that you don't think there are any technical problem
on my patch. You think the problem is on the discussion and communication
> 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 have ever sent a similar patch to the upstream. I imagine it was
one year (or more) ago. However, though the goals of the patches
are similar, they are different. My previous patch to the upstream
was for the xterm's source itself, while this time for the configuration
file. If I remember correctly, the previous patch introduced some
new resources to prevent *-iso10646-1 fonts be used in conventional
8bit mode, which is not included in this time patch at all.
In short, intent is same, implementation is diffierent. Since this
time patch is for configuration file, I thought it may be applicable
for distribution level. (It may also be applicable for upstream
level. Either may be OK.)
Did Mr. Dickey say that my patch is same as the previous one which
was rejected? Then, anyway, I need to discuss with the 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
Completely different implementation. This criticism should not
Also, many Debian packages have their own configuration file which
are different from the upstream. In general, small modifications
for configuration file are not considered as a "fork".
Tomohiro KUBOTA <email@example.com>