Processed: Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: reopen 215647 Bug#215647: xterm: want ISO 10646-1 fonts used by default instead of ISO 8559-1 Bug reopened, originator not changed. End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: retitle 215647 xterm: change the encoding according to the current LC_CTYPE locale Bug#215647: xterm: want ISO 10646-1 fonts used by default instead of ISO 8559-1 Changed Bug title. End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: tag 215647 + wontfix Bug#215647: xterm: change the encoding according to the current LC_CTYPE locale Tags were: wontfix experimental patch Tags added: wontfix thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 11:28:10PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: Nope, my sole intention was to be as assholish as you were in your original post. What a noble goal. In any case, I'd say you exceeded your own expectations. That said, I would be glad to help and subscribe to debian-x just now. I am mainly interested in improving i18n support for sarge and will first review bugreports which seem to have a trivial fix. For any XKB reports, it's going to be worth looking at the xfree86 4.3.0 packages before recommending any patches for application. -- 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
Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:21:19AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: The solution to this problem is probably by finding more and more manpower for maintaining our packages and all stuff we want to progress in Debian. If we lack manpower, we have to make sacrifices, which is always hard to accept for people who accept them. I agree with your analysis. I'm not stingy with handing out access to the X Strike Force Subversion repositories. Just ask the dozen or so people who have access (most of whom don't use it for anything -- sigh). I invite those who are frustrated with i18n/l10n issues in XFree86 to step forward and take some ownership. Deadkeys busted on French keyboards, for example? Step up. Volunteers are welcome. I do expect people to be able to work within the framework I've set up (commit disruptive stuff on a branch, write reasonable commit logs, and so forth) -- this isn't an invitation to take total control over some chunk of XFree86. The reason for that is, someone still has to take responsibility for the package as a whole, and the bug reports that get filed against it, and that someone is (still) me. But you'll have a pretty free hand to experiment; we can create a branch just for i18n/l10n improvements if need be, and that way changes there can't disrupt the trunk or 4.3.0-sid branch. -- G. Branden Robinson| The power of accurate observation Debian GNU/Linux | is frequently called cynicism by [EMAIL PROTECTED] | those who don't have it. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- George Bernard Shaw signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 04:02:34PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] Let's not forget, although apparently you have, that I was one of the first adopters of po-debconf. Given how often your own localization patches have been submitted and accepted (usually pretty promptly -- the next package release), I assume you're grandstanding for the audience on -i18n, because anyone who follows -x knows that your accusations are bullshit. Nope, my sole intention was to be as assholish as you were in your original post. That said, I would be glad to help and subscribe to debian-x just now. I am mainly interested in improving i18n support for sarge and will first review bugreports which seem to have a trivial fix. Denis -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:36:31PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:52:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
[...]
The bug submitter had already contacted the upstream maintainer of
XTerm, and the patches had been rejected by him. Apparently, the
submitter's goal was to get Debian to fork from upstream after the exact
same change had been rejected upstream.
If I follow you, Debian libtool must not be patched too.
1) My policy of not deviating from upstream is a rule of thumb, not a
straightjacket.
2) I'm not the libtool maintainer. If you have some strong emotion
about Debian not patching its libtool, then complain to him. But
don't you dare imply that *I* feel Debian's libtool shouldn't be
patched. I don't know enough about libtool to say.
It is sometimes easier to patch Debian packages because we know that
some tools are available. For instance in #179929 the same upstream
rejected a patch because GNU sed is needed, and you did not apply
it too. Do you have any good reason?
Your question presumes that there exists an answer you'd consider
good, and I suspect there isn't. So I'm not going to play that game.
And the fix is trivial, sed -e 's/[EMAIL PROTECTED]//' should do the trick without
GNU sed.
Thanks for reminding me that I need to tag the bug as
fixed-in-experimental.
I didn't see you offering to help prepare a patch suitable for
submission to the upstream maintainer back when it mattered.
Are you kidding? On the one hand patches are rejected without even
telling why, and on the other hand forks are considered as unfriendly.
I've told you why. The upstream maintainer considers the patch
unsuitable. Gratuitous forks *are* considered unfriendly, at least when
they're placed in Debian's upload queue. We've since learned that that
was inadvertent.
Our Social Contract says We Won't Hide Problems.
Given the amount of trivial bugreports related to i18n with patches
against xterm/xlibs, your interpretation seems to be We Will Expose
Problems via the BTS.
I can't test a lot of the patches that are submitted (for example,
because I don't have the proper environment configured or don't own a
non-US keyboard -- incidentally, it's extremely rare that someone with
an alternative localization setup includes that information in the bug
report; in fact, it's rare that any information on how to reproduce the
bug is given at all). I've tried applying patches blindly before, and
it often results in things breaking for other people. Many patches I
get are just flat-out wrong.
XFree86 is team-maintained these days. If you think you can be a team
player, ask to join. If all you can do is bitch about how things aren't
being handled to suit your tastes, my preference is that you'd just go
away.
After reading other i18n related bugreports, I have the feeling that
you won't apply a patch not approved by upstream, even if it is a
trivial fix for a real problem.
I won't apply a patch if I don't understand how it works, cannot test
it, and do not have anyone I trust to whom I can turn to does.
My extreme hostility to i18n is obviously clearly reflected in my
failure to ever merge any Debconf template translations.
* debian/po/ja.po: update Japanese translations (thanks, Kenshi Muto and
Takeo Nakano)
* debian/po/pt_BR.po: updated Brazilian Portuguese translations (thanks,
Andre Luis Lopes) (Closes: #206949)
* debian/po/fr.po: updated French translations (thanks, Christian Perrier)
(Closes: #207239)
* debian/po/fr.po: updated French translations (thanks, Christian Perrier)
(Closes: #207239)
* debian/po/fr.po: update French debconf template translations (thanks,
* debian/po/ca.po: updated Catalan debconf template translations (thanks,
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer) (Closes: #183317,#183322)
* debian/po/{da,de,gl,it,ja,nl,pl,sv}.po: updated debconf template
translations for several languages courtesy of Denis Barbier, after a
buggy version of po-debconf eviscerated them (Closes: #170591)
* debian/po/es.po: updated Spanish debconf template translations (thanks,
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Peña) (Closes: #186147)
* debian/po/fr.po: updated French debconf template translations (thanks,
Christian Perrier) (Closes: #185708)
* debian/po/ru.po: updated Russian debconf template translations (thanks,
Serge Winitzki) (Closes: #182701)
* debian/po/pt_BR.po: updated debconf translations for Brazilian Portuguese
(thanks, Andre Luis Lopes) (Closes: #179352)
* debian/xdm.templates.nl: added Dutch translation (thanks, Wouter Verhelst)
(Closes: #139229)
* debian/xserver-common.templates.nl: added Dutch translation (thanks,
Wouter Verhelst) (Closes: #139230)
* debian/xserver-xfree86.templates.nl: added Dutch translation (needs
update) (thanks, Wouter Verhelst) (Closes: #139231)
* debian/xserver-xfree86.templates.sv: updated Swedish translation (needs
update) (thanks, Mikael
Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:36:31PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 10:52:47AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: [...] The bug submitter had already contacted the upstream maintainer of XTerm, and the patches had been rejected by him. Apparently, the submitter's goal was to get Debian to fork from upstream after the exact same change had been rejected upstream. If I follow you, Debian libtool must not be patched too. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/debian/xfree86/xsf-repo/branches/4.3.0/sid/debian/patches% wc -l * | tail -1 ls -l | wc -l 106899 total 125 -- Daniel Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org - http://www.kde.org - http://www.freedesktop.org What's next? People turning up on my doorstep, observing that the lack of doorbell is likely to confuse people and hence removing my front door? -- David Woodhouse on usability efforts, Advogato pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 01:14:31PM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote: You should have requested to tag it directly wontfix, you would have saved yourself some work ;) Or was the discussion with upstream done in the meantime? Yes, discussion was done with upstream in the meantime. I also fail to understand why the xterm program should be unusable by CJK people when the fix is so lightweighted. I may well be missing the point, but I'd like to have more details if possible. I'll ask Mr. Dickey if he'd like to share his reasoning with the list. Branden, could you please provide more information about why this patch is not good, and what should be changed in it to make it acceptable? It was an upstream decision which I elected to respect. Or if you have other ideas to make xterm usable to CKJ people not willing to use UTF, could you enlight us, please? For example, what are the arguments used by upstream to convince you that this patch was bad ? Since they came in private mail, I feel it is better to let Mr. Dickey make his case, if he chooses to. I am sorry to whine that way, but I'd really like to understand the situation here. I'd be more than happy if your answer contains nothing but a bunch of pointers. The bug submitter had already contacted the upstream maintainer of XTerm, and the patches had been rejected by him. Apparently, the submitter's goal was to get Debian to fork from upstream after the exact same change had been rejected upstream. I think KUBOTA-san's effort to sneak his changes in through the backdoor, as it were, without apprising me of his earlier failed efforts to get them accepted upstream, was an underhanded and dishonest thing to do. When the Debian-JP Project merged with Debian, the understanding was the Debian-JP maintainers would work with upstream authors and their fellow non-JP Debian developers in an open and communicative fashion, instead of just forking everything behind a wall of silence. In the instant case, I feel that pledge has been violated. It's happened again, just within the past day, with xft-cjk; while the person who inadvertently uploaded it to auric's queue wasn't a Debian Developer (the upload was rejected), there is probably at least one Debian developer who is aware of these patches. Has there ever been a bug filed against xft about the issues which that patch seeks to address? No. Our Social Contract says We Won't Hide Problems. I do not feel that that principle is being upheld very well by some of our developers. That KUBTOA-san has a patch for xterm that was rejected by upstream was a problem. He didn't tell me of his patch's past history with the upstream maintainer. He hid it instead. There are patches for Xft that putatively fix some CJK localization issues. Those issues have not been brought to the attention of the X Strike Force. Any Debian Developer who was aware of them and did not communicate this information to the debian-x list (or via a bug report) is hiding the problem. -- G. Branden Robinson| Debian GNU/Linux | Please do not look directly into [EMAIL PROTECTED] | laser with remaining eye. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
