Re: Patch audit continued, mostly locales
Daniel Stone wrote:
>Again, you seem to be excluding the possibility of further development
>happening in xfree86 that didn't happen to get synced.
Yes.
(1) I didn't look at xfree86 upstream
(2) I didn't check the history of Debian's xfree86 patches back very far.
(3) I made the assumption that the Ubuntu folks would have pulled all the
changes from Debian except possibly the most recent ones.
(4) the changes appeared to have been present since before the Ubuntu fork.
I guess either (3) or (4) was just wrong. If (4) is wrong, it's just my
stupidity. If (3) is wrong, it shows the necessity of a patch audit.
>> + -- Branden's grammar fixes deserve to return.
>
>s/return/be ported
Yes.
>> + -- more likely, the xfree86 version is right and the version from Ubuntu
>> + lost stuff.
>
>s/lost stuff/didn't get updated to follow Debian/
Yes, that's fine. :-) I didn't mean to be hostile to Ubuntu.
> > + -- some substantial upstream submission wouldn't hurt here
>
> Already been submitted, and it's blocking on someone from Sun who,
> AFAICT, hasn't meaningfully existed in any X.Org sense for years now.
Eeeew. What is this Sun guy complaining about? Can't the current upstream
maintainers just "do it"? :-(
Reply to: