Follow-up Comment #7, bug #68271 (group groff): At 2026-04-24T13:44:03-0400, Vincent Lefèvre wrote: > Follow-up Comment #6, bug #68271 (group groff): > > [comment #5 commentaire #5 :] >> Is Debian the de facto upstream maintainer for fvwm2? > > As one can see at https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/fvwm there is very > little activity: since 2022, 2 patches on the Debian side due to > issues coming from the upgrade of other packages. This would be > similar with groff 1.24.
Yes, I see. Thank you! >> Do you know where I should best send patches addressing issues in >> fvwm 2's man pages? > > I've just submitted a bug report concerning the Fvwm2Cpp(1) man page > at least: > > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1134825 > > So patches could be sent to this bug, where a tag "patch" can then be > added. > > Then let's hope that the Debian maintainer will publish a new version > (but end users can also rebuild the package from the source + the > patch, which is something I often do). Acknowledged. I'll see if I can knock something together. _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?68271> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
