On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 02:29:34AM +0100, Sebastian Kapfer wrote: > Please, can something be done about this bug? At least apply my > _trivial_ suggestion from above? It defeats the purpose of all that > Debconf/Defoma magic when users have to amend the fontpaths on their > own. It would be very sad if Sarge shipped with this misbehaviour.
I've never shipped defoma support in our XFree86 packages because:
1) I never managed to understand defoma despite multiple attempts to
comprehend the documentation;
2) It seems to be nearly orphaned -- it has seen only two uploads in the
past year, one of which was an NMU. It is a Debian-native package and yet
has 2 important and 17 normal bug reports outstanding against it.
I cannot properly support that which I don't understand, and there's quite
enough of that just in the XFree86 codebase alone without adding to it.
The preference of the release managers that XFree86 stabilize for sarge
release has been expressed to me, and there are currently no plans for a
-13 release[1].
I could conceivably be persuaded that defoma is the way, the truth, and the
light, and that I should beseech the release managers to let a -13 with
defoma support added into sarge, but someone's got to make a case for it.
To the best of my recollection, no one has ever made such a case. All I
ever get are unexplained requests to add the same two Byzantine file
specifications to the default font path. (Also, these submitters never
seem to think about xfs and its default catalogue.)
I have almost as much aversion to cargo-cult configuration as I do to
cargo-cult programming.
Does someone want to take ownership of this issue, and intelligently
evangelize defoma?
[1] As can be seen at:
http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/xsf/XFree86/trunk/debian/TODO
--
G. Branden Robinson | You live and learn.
Debian GNU/Linux | Or you don't live long.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | -- Robert Heinlein
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
