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

Bug#50949: marked as done (xbase-clients: [xmodmap] all line numbers are off-by-one)

Your message dated Sat, 19 Oct 2013 19:25:08 +0000
with message-id <5262DC94.7060201@solveig.org>
and subject line Re: xbase-clients: [xmodmap] all line numbers are off-by-one - closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #50949,
regarding xbase-clients: [xmodmap] all line numbers are off-by-one
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
50949: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=50949
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: xbase-clients
Version: 3.3.5-1

(Architecture: sparc, but I don't think it matters)

All line numbers emitted by xmodmap are counted from zero, which is extremely
confusing since editors count lines starting with 1. Also things like compilers 
which emit error messages use 1 as the first line.

This can be seen if you use -v, or if you have an input file with an error,
and it's pretty obvious from the xmodmap source.

(Aside: it would be nice if it were easier to (1) just build a single
binary package from the xfree source package and (2) if it were easier 
to see the source, ie it didn't come as a .tgz file inside the source 
archive...)

Peter Maydell

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
fixed 50949 x11-xserver-utils/7.7+1

Hi! I'm closing this bug, since it was tagged "wontfix" for some
years, without answer. If you have new reasons to point out this
problem, please feel free to re-open it.

Also, not reproductible with 7.7+1. (no line numbers...)

--- End Message ---
Reply to: