On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 05:28:44AM +0900, Tomohiro KUBOTA wrote: > From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Bug#215647: [patch] xterm 4.3.0-0pre1v3 i18n > Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:52:47 -0500 > > > It was an upstream decision which I elected to respect. > > Ok, I understand that you don't think there are any technical problem > on my patch. You think the problem is on the discussion and communication > procedure.
That's not correct. The upstream maintainer informed me that there were technical problems with your patch. There are *also* discussion and communication problems, in that I feel you were not sharing vital information with me, namely that you had already submitted your patch upstream, and it had been rejected. That doesn't mean I will *automatically* reject your patch, but it means that I need to understand upstream's objections, and that you may need to make a stronger case for why upstream's objections are not relevant to Debian, are outweighed by other considerations unique to our OS. > I have ever sent a similar patch to the upstream. I imagine it was > one year (or more) ago. However, though the goals of the patches > are similar, they are different. My previous patch to the upstream > was for the xterm's source itself, while this time for the configuration > file. If I remember correctly, the previous patch introduced some > new resources to prevent *-iso10646-1 fonts be used in conventional > 8bit mode, which is not included in this time patch at all. Yes, Mr. Dickey said some things that puzzled me a little bit. I did notice that your patch changed only the XTerm app-defaults file. > In short, intent is same, implementation is diffierent. Since this > time patch is for configuration file, I thought it may be applicable > for distribution level. (It may also be applicable for upstream > level. Either may be OK.) > > Did Mr. Dickey say that my patch is same as the previous one which > was rejected? Then, anyway, I need to discuss with the upstream. He didn't say that, but he may have read the patch hastily and assumed it was. > > 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. > > Completely different implementation. This criticism should not > be appropriate. > > Also, many Debian packages have their own configuration file which > are different from the upstream. In general, small modifications > for configuration file are not considered as a "fork". That's true. However I'm still not sure that your alteration to the configuration is an alteration that needs to be made the Debian default. The app-defaults files are conffiles for a reason. For years now I've wanted to arrange things such that the very generic X font aliases "fixed", "proportional", "5x7", and so forth would go through another layer of indirection; one that would allow people to choose a codeset for the font that would make sense for their locale. I had this idea way back when xfonts-cyrillic was called xfonts-cyr. Then, we'd get something effectively the same as your xterm patch, but which would apply to all XLFD-using applications, which seems like a win. However, I've never had time to implement this. Is anyone interested in this task? -- G. Branden Robinson | There's nothing an agnostic can't Debian GNU/Linux | do if he doesn't know whether he [EMAIL PROTECTED] | believes in it or not. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Graham Chapman
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
