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

Bug#346398: marked as done (xterm: scrollbar broken; new path)



Your message dated Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:47:16 -0800
with message-id <E1EvrkK-0005Zt-7G@spohr.debian.org>
and subject line Bug#346398: fixed in xterm 208-2
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jan 2006 16:50:56 +0000
>From ghoti@charlie.9ux.com Sat Jan 07 08:50:56 2006
Return-path: <ghoti@charlie.9ux.com>
Received: from charlie.9ux.com ([66.252.40.219] ident=root)
	by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
	id 1EvHHM-0007SS-05
	for submit@bugs.debian.org; Sat, 07 Jan 2006 08:50:56 -0800
Received: from charlie.9ux.com (ghoti@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by charlie.9ux.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k07GosVN001585
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:50:54 -0500
Received: (from ghoti@localhost)
	by charlie.9ux.com (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k07Gorh6001584;
	Sat, 7 Jan 2006 11:50:53 -0500
Sender: kirk@debian.org
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: xterm: scrollbar broken; new path
From: Kirk Hilliard <kirk@debian.org>
Date: 07 Jan 2006 11:47:56 -0500
Message-ID: <[🔎] 87irswj877.fsf@ghoti.com>
Lines: 22
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Package: xterm
Version: 208-1
Severity: normal

The scrollbar used to indicate what portion of the scrollback buffer
was currently being displayed, but the shaded in portion of the bar
now seems to vary randomly, with no relation to what it should be
indicating.  The scrollbar still functions to control scrolling.

"xterm -sb" is sufficient to demonstrate this.


BTW, I noticed that the path to xterm has changed from
  /usr/bin/X11/xterm
to
  /usr/bin/xterm
.  This is not a problem in itself (just requiring a few changes to
some local scripts with hard coded paths) but it is not mentioned in
the changelog, so I wanted to make sure that the change was not
accidental.

Kirk

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 346398-close) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Jan 2006 07:50:40 +0000
>From katie@ftp-master.debian.org Sun Jan 08 23:50:40 2006
Return-path: <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 4.50)
	id 1EvrkK-0005Zt-7G; Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:47:16 -0800
From: =?utf-8?q?David_Mart=C3=ADnez_Moreno?= <ender@debian.org>
To: 346398-close@bugs.debian.org
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.65 $
Subject: Bug#346398: fixed in xterm 208-2
Message-Id: <E1EvrkK-0005Zt-7G@spohr.debian.org>
Sender: Archive Administrator <katie@ftp-master.debian.org>
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 23:47:16 -0800
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
	(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
	autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02

Source: xterm
Source-Version: 208-2

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
xterm, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

xterm_208-2.diff.gz
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_208-2.diff.gz
xterm_208-2.dsc
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_208-2.dsc
xterm_208-2_i386.deb
  to pool/main/x/xterm/xterm_208-2_i386.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to 346398@bugs.debian.org,
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
David Martínez Moreno <ender@debian.org> (supplier of updated xterm package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing ftpmaster@debian.org)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Mon,  9 Jan 2006 08:21:41 +0100
Source: xterm
Binary: xterm
Architecture: source i386
Version: 208-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian X Strike Force <debian-x@lists.debian.org>
Changed-By: David Martínez Moreno <ender@debian.org>
Description: 
 xterm      - X terminal emulator
Closes: 346398
Changes: 
 xterm (208-2) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Added 000_stolen_from_HEAD.diff, with last minute changes from Thomas
     Dickey:
     - fix typo in configure script option --disable-narrowproto.
     - Amend CF_X_FREETYPE changes for pkg-config check to ensure that Xft is
       known to that tool.
     - Add an ifdef to allow ./configure --disable-active-icon to work, broken
       by new code for testing memory leaks in #208.
   * Added --disable-imake and --enable-narrowproto to configure line in order
     to deal with toolbar problems due to the absence of NARROWPROTO definition
     (closes: 346398).
Files: 
 bc72561b1b7d8f39c1e243f9a1fb5080 767 x11 optional xterm_208-2.dsc
 764dec2d80721ece96afcc6482752de0 61796 x11 optional xterm_208-2.diff.gz
 9b6b412f6f9adfee678393b4092c61cf 377018 x11 optional xterm_208-2_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDwhHWWs/EhA1iABsRAqGYAJ99oR4moVzVQbHk716gVDXdM8l1yACfU4ew
cdCYkJT1ZZMrOMdPDVlB28U=
=Z+Us
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: