> 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. Paul [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2009/11/msg00079.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature