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

Re: RFS: lesstif2

> Actually what I was saying is that the libxpm within the lesstif
> package has remained stagnant for many years while the separate
> libxpm has evolved, so those are in that package.  You can see
> this progression in the libxpm repo [0].

Ah, sorry, I completely misunderstood. The way you say it makes more
sense and a very good reason to update the lesstif package. If you are
still sure about the fact that libxpm is the better one and lesstif
performs as it should, I consider that it might be even worth to
incorporate your proposed changes upstream. What do you say?

>> About lesstif, I merely think that if we really want to improve lesstif,
>> we should be working on the copy/paste issues. That part of the code
>> really needs some attention which apparently nobody is able to give.
> To be honest, I don't have that much interest in that feature, and
> I have limited time, so I probably won't be able to work on that.

Fair enough. I guess that goes for most people. For me it was annoying
that I spend quite some time improving the lesstif package last time to
find out that the current main complaint is that copy/pasting is buggy.
I looked at the code, but that is far over my head.

> I hadn't really thought about that, but that's a very good point.
> I'll try recompiling all the reverse deps to see if this is going
> to be an issue or not.  Hopefully most have moved to standalone
> libxpm already; otherwise we'll need to come up with a transition
> plan.

I think the policy says that the SONAME must be bumped. Or do I
understand the policy wrong? I am not sure about other packages moving
to libxpm, I haven't checked. As far as I can tell, there are quite some
rev build-depends of lesstif with little activity (don't change it if it
ain't broken).

>> In my last round of improvements, there was some debate
>> about if we shouldn't remove lesstif completely from Debian, although I
>> think since last time the state has improved a bit. We can of course (I
>> still have upstream commit rights) again improve lesstif itself.
> Do you have a link to that debate?  I think it still serves a useful
> purpose and if people are willing to maintain it, I don't see why it
> can't stay.

The discussion in [1] is indeed still very interesting (at least for
me). The problem is indeed to find people willing to maintain it (longer
than a couple of months/commits).

> I didn't really think about that, but yes, I ended up looking at the package
> because I was trying to make xpdf better ;)

I saw that, that's why I thought I mention it.


[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/11/msg00079.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: