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

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

On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 05:28:44AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote:
> From: Branden Robinson <branden@debian.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
> procedure.

That's not correct.  The upstream maintainer informed me that there were
technical problems with your patch.

There are *also* discussion and communication problems, in that I feel
you were not sharing vital information with me, namely that you had
already submitted your patch upstream, and it had been rejected.

That doesn't mean I will *automatically* reject your patch, but it means
that I need to understand upstream's objections, and that you may need
to make a stronger case for why upstream's objections are not relevant
to Debian, are outweighed by other considerations unique to our OS.

> 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.

Yes, Mr. Dickey said some things that puzzled me a little bit.  I did
notice that your patch changed only the XTerm app-defaults file.

> 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.

He didn't say that, but he may have read the patch hastily and assumed
it was.

> > 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
> > do.
> Completely different implementation.  This criticism should not
> be appropriate.
> 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".

That's true.  However I'm still not sure that your alteration to the
configuration is an alteration that needs to be made the Debian default.
The app-defaults files are conffiles for a reason.

For years now I've wanted to arrange things such that the very generic
X font aliases "fixed", "proportional", "5x7", and so forth would go
through another layer of indirection; one that would allow people to
choose a codeset for the font that would make sense for their locale.  I
had this idea way back when xfonts-cyrillic was called xfonts-cyr.

Then, we'd get something effectively the same as your xterm patch, but
which would apply to all XLFD-using applications, which seems like a

However, I've never had time to implement this.  Is anyone interested in
this task?

G. Branden Robinson                |     There's nothing an agnostic can't
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     do if he doesn't know whether he
branden@debian.org                 |     believes in it or not.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Graham Chapman

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: