On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:36:31PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:52:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.
>
> If I follow you, Debian libtool must not be patched too.
1) My policy of not deviating from upstream is a rule of thumb, not a
straightjacket.
2) I'm not the libtool maintainer. If you have some strong emotion
about Debian not patching its libtool, then complain to him. But
don't you dare imply that *I* feel Debian's libtool shouldn't be
patched. I don't know enough about libtool to say.
> It is sometimes easier to patch Debian packages because we know that
> some tools are available. For instance in #179929 the same upstream
> rejected a patch because GNU sed is needed, and you did not apply
> it too. Do you have any good reason?
Your question presumes that there exists an answer you'd consider
"good", and I suspect there isn't. So I'm not going to play that game.
> And the fix is trivial, sed -e 's/[.@].*//' should do the trick without
> GNU sed.
Thanks for reminding me that I need to tag the bug as
fixed-in-experimental.
I didn't see you offering to help prepare a patch suitable for
submission to the upstream maintainer back when it mattered.
> Are you kidding? On the one hand patches are rejected without even
> telling why, and on the other hand forks are considered as unfriendly.
I've told you why. The upstream maintainer considers the patch
unsuitable. Gratuitous forks *are* considered unfriendly, at least when
they're placed in Debian's upload queue. We've since learned that that
was inadvertent.
> > Our Social Contract says "We Won't Hide Problems".
>
> Given the amount of trivial bugreports related to i18n with patches
> against xterm/xlibs, your interpretation seems to be "We Will Expose
> Problems via the BTS".
I can't test a lot of the patches that are submitted (for example,
because I don't have the proper environment configured or don't own a
non-US keyboard -- incidentally, it's extremely rare that someone with
an alternative localization setup includes that information in the bug
report; in fact, it's rare that any information on how to reproduce the
bug is given at all). I've tried applying patches blindly before, and
it often results in things breaking for other people. Many patches I
get are just flat-out wrong.
XFree86 is team-maintained these days. If you think you can be a team
player, ask to join. If all you can do is bitch about how things aren't
being handled to suit your tastes, my preference is that you'd just go
away.
> After reading other i18n related bugreports, I have the feeling that
> you won't apply a patch not approved by upstream, even if it is a
> trivial fix for a real problem.
I won't apply a patch if I don't understand how it works, cannot test
it, and do not have anyone I trust to whom I can turn to does.
My extreme hostility to i18n is obviously clearly reflected in my
failure to ever merge any Debconf template translations.
* debian/po/ja.po: update Japanese translations (thanks, Kenshi Muto and
Takeo Nakano)
* debian/po/pt_BR.po: updated Brazilian Portuguese translations (thanks,
Andre Luis Lopes) (Closes: #206949)
* debian/po/fr.po: updated French translations (thanks, Christian Perrier)
(Closes: #207239)
* debian/po/fr.po: updated French translations (thanks, Christian Perrier)
(Closes: #207239)
* debian/po/fr.po: update French debconf template translations (thanks,
* debian/po/ca.po: updated Catalan debconf template translations (thanks,
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer) (Closes: #183317,#183322)
* debian/po/{da,de,gl,it,ja,nl,pl,sv}.po: updated debconf template
translations for several languages courtesy of Denis Barbier, after a
buggy version of po-debconf eviscerated them (Closes: #170591)
* debian/po/es.po: updated Spanish debconf template translations (thanks,
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Peña) (Closes: #186147)
* debian/po/fr.po: updated French debconf template translations (thanks,
Christian Perrier) (Closes: #185708)
* debian/po/ru.po: updated Russian debconf template translations (thanks,
Serge Winitzki) (Closes: #182701)
* debian/po/pt_BR.po: updated debconf translations for Brazilian Portuguese
(thanks, Andre Luis Lopes) (Closes: #179352)
* debian/xdm.templates.nl: added Dutch translation (thanks, Wouter Verhelst)
(Closes: #139229)
* debian/xserver-common.templates.nl: added Dutch translation (thanks,
Wouter Verhelst) (Closes: #139230)
* debian/xserver-xfree86.templates.nl: added Dutch translation (needs
update) (thanks, Wouter Verhelst) (Closes: #139231)
* debian/xserver-xfree86.templates.sv: updated Swedish translation (needs
update) (thanks, Mikael Hedin) (Closes: #143477)
* Renamed Danish debconf template translation files from *.dk to *.da, and
updated internal tags accordingly. (thanks, Denis Barbier)
* debian/xdm.templates.pl: added Polish translation (thanks, Marcin Owsiany)
(Closes: #142538)
* debian/xdm.templates.ru: added Russian translation (thanks, Ilgiz
Kalmetev) (Closes: #136937)
* debian/xdm.templates.sv: added Swedish translation (thanks, Peter Toneby)
(Closes: #141413)
* debian/xserver-common.templates.pl: added Polish translation (thanks,
Marcin Owsiany) (Closes: #142542)
* debian/xserver-common.templates.ru: added Russian translation (thanks,
Ilgiz Kalmetev) (Closes: #136615)
* debian/xserver-common.templates.sv: added Swedish translation (thanks,
Peter Toneby) (Closes: #141415)
* debian/xserver-xfree86.templates.ru: added Russian translation (thanks,
Ilgiz Kalmetev) (Closes: #138325)
* debian/xserver-xfree86.templates.sv: added Swedish translation (thanks,
Peter Toneby) (Closes: #141412)
* debian/{xdm,xserver-common,xserver-xfree86}.templates.ca: added Catalan
translations (thanks, Ivan Vilata i Balaguer) (Closes: #133791)
* debian/xdm.templates.fr: added French translation (thanks, Jean-Christophe
Dubacq)
* debian/xdm.templates.it: added Italian translation (thanks, Matteo
Dell'Amico) (Closes: #135915)
* debian/xdm.templates.ja: added Japanese translation (thanks, Tomohiro
KUBOTA)
...and so forth.
Let's not forget, although apparently you have, that I was one of the
first adopters of po-debconf.
Given how often your own localization patches have been submitted and
accepted (usually pretty promptly -- the next package release), I assume
you're grandstanding for the audience on -i18n, because anyone who
follows -x knows that your accusations are bullshit.
> So I would have behaved the exact same way as Kubota-san did.
You appear to simply be looking for excuse to indulge your mindless
hostility. If you want to help, help. Identify patches that offer no
more in the way of explanation than "Is broke. Here fix.", and provide
the missing justification and explanation.
I trust you're aware of the massive rearrangement of the XKB data in
4.3.0, which is why I haven't been applying much in the way of XKB data
patches. Well, no, you probably weren't. That would require reading
the traffic on the debian-x mailing list, wouldn't it?
--
G. Branden Robinson | A celibate clergy is an especially
Debian GNU/Linux | good idea, because it tends to
branden@debian.org | suppress any hereditary propensity
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | toward fanaticism. -- Carl Sagan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature