On 12-07-25 at 11:28am, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote: > > On 12-07-24 at 06:36pm, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote: > >> I have made a past for ghostscript that will ease the debugging of > >> ghostscript problem. > >> > >> Instead of printing numeric error ghostscript will print > >> strerror(error). > >> > >> It is a one liner quite safe because code path is tested on dos and > >> windows (please do not laugth). > >> > >> Now: > >> * do you think this patch is worthwhile ? > >> * do you think we could convince the release team to get it [1]. > > > > I think it sounds like a good idea, but do not see it as crucial and > > prefer if you could persuade upstream to adopt it and not carry a > > local patch for it. > > Already patched upstream. See but about unhelful message Ahh. I failed to connect the dots so did not realize you were talking about bug#682407. :-) NB! It is much easier if you provide URL for bug and/or upstream patch. Or do so implicitly by posting to the corresponding bugreport instead of the mailinglist. Patch now applied to main branch of our ghostscript git. > > ...and I do not see it as important for a freeze exception, but don't > > mind you trying, if you insist. > > Will try If you are interested, then share here on the list how you intend to approach it, and I can perhaps help you (e.g. how to make use of the git the IMO least messy way, and warn about challenges I see in it - the reasons I didn't want to do it myself). Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature