As I said, my patch is one approach to solve this problem by dropping the code that adds an extra frame. The other one would be to add that extra frame correctly instead: this solution would be less intrusive to the behaviour of this program but more intrusive to its source code. I can provide another patch for that if needed.
I assumed that missing part of a frame is not a real issue, but I do not know this context very well. I think we should ask the upstream authors for advice, since that patch will eventually be merge into their code as it is a general bug fix, and they are likely to know the situation better than I do. Maintainers, do you want to do that by yourselves or would you prefer that I contact them directly, possibly filing a bug report on their BTS and linking it to this one? -- ,--. : /` ) Tanguy Ortolo <xmpp:tan...@ortolo.eu> <irc://irc.oftc.net/Elessar> | `-' Debian Maintainer \_
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
