tag 530588 wontfix thanks Martin, Christoph, can you two please resolve your changes to chanact.pl with upstream so that I don't have to redo any more patches for this? if the patches were easy to refresh, I wouldn't have any problem, but last time I had to re implement the features Christoph added, which was difficult for me since I have no clue what chanact does (and I still don't), so it was difficult to understand the code. And the changes I made weren't tested at all (which I *hate*, but Christoph seemed to think it would be fine..), since Christoph is using a local, more patched version than in the package, and I still have no clue wtf this thing does. if you don't want to send your changes to upstream (I don't know why you wouldn't, but..), then just make a local fork in ~/.irssi/scripts/ and implement it there. I will strongly object to any more patching of this script in the package, and want the existing patches in the package to be applied upstream or removed. I also think that in general new features shouldn't be implemented as patches in Debian packages, unless you're damn sure that upstream will never touch the code again, which is clearly not the case here, because then you have the risk that either upstream will implement it themselves in a different way and break compatibility for existing users or upstream will reject the idea and then you're stuck maintaining the patch forever. In this case, it seems that both of you have implemented the same feature in different, incompatible ways, and I don't have enough knowledge of this script anyway, so I can't really forward these sets of changes to upstream myself...so one (or both) of you will need to take action on this. Christoph, can I just drop your existing patches to chanact in the package? since you aren't even using it from the package anymore, and I'm assuming you only implemented the changes for yourself, that seems to make sense...
-- _________________________ Ryan Niebur ryanrya...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
