Well, I've done a bit of work on my own and come up with a new batch of questions for round 2. So, here goes.
I tried doing the drop-in of the aforementioned patch[0], but the biggest problem I ran into was the fact that the "Hunk succeeded" messages weren't being surpressed on it for some reason. The diff seemed to be in the same format as every other patch in the debian/patches directory, and the script that applies them (debian/script/apply.patches if memory serves) seemed pretty patch agnostic, so I didn't know what was going on. So, like any hacker who wants something to work, I kludged a fix. I untarred the upstream tarball (is this pristine, from the xf-4_2_0 CVS branch?), applied the patch manually, and re-tarred the tarball. Thankfully for my kludge (though this may be a policy issue, or it may not since it allows things like what I just mentioned to be greatly simplified), no md5sum or other integrity checking is performed on the tarball itself other than "as long as it untars and builds, it's okay." So, after that, the dpkg-buildpackage (and, for reference, I did "dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b" as it seemed to suit my needs best) went off without a hitch, and I had a nice set of debs I could now install. So, after a quick dpkg-scanpackages on my local repository, and a quick stop into aptitude to upgrade the packages (and affirm that my version number change took effect so that the normal packages in main wouldn't clobber my custom ones), I had them installed. Everything went fine there as well. In fact, the whole thing works just as I had wanted. So, can I propose that we include this patch as well? Or at least forward it upstream for them to scrutinize/test? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
