On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 01:48:06PM -0800, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 11:56:10AM -0500, Dave Harding wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Pressing "backspace" generates "\" when pressed as expected.
> > > > Pressing "Shift+backspace" does not generate "|", as expected. Pressing
> > > > "Shift+<|\>" also does not generate "|". This behavior has been
> > > > reported to function as expected to me since at lease XFree 3.3.x
> > > > but not >=4.3
> >
> > > I believe that this is due to /etc/X11/xkb/symbols/pc/pc:
> > > key <BKSP> {
> > > type="CTRL+ALT",
> > > symbols[Group1]= [ BackSpace, Terminate_Server ]
> > > };
> > > and thus is not a bug.
> >
> > Thank you and I appologize for my inabilty to locate that information on
> > my own.
>
> As your problem is quite specific and you were able to fix it, I am
> closing this bug. This does not mean that current files are perfect,
> but keeping this bug open does not help.
> If you are interested in this issue, please let's discuss it on the
> debian-x mailing list instead.Well, that decision may have been a little hasty. > > I was still curious as to the change of behavior between versions of > > XFree86 prior to 4.3. > > Right, there are indeed good reasons to be curious, some changes seem > to be quite harmful. The multi-layout scheme is much more powerful, > but for many users who do not need it, it also breaks compatibility :( > > > I examined the change log available at: > > http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/CHANGELOG?rev=HEAD > > > > In the changelog I found: > > > > "675. Fix some problems with the addition of multi-layout scheme to > > xkb: some keys that aren't 'alphabetic' should be treated as > > such to allow CapsLock+Shift working as expected; sometimes it > > is required to load an include file more than once due to > > multi-layout configuration, also fix some typos (#5545, Ivan Pascal). > > > > 674. XKB programable 'special combinations' (such as Ctrl+Alt+<key>) > > also send usual key evants (press and release). Although the > > keysym generated in this case is NoSymbol such events can confuse > > some applications (#5546, Ivan Pascal)." > > Huh, there does not seem to be any such bug in XFree86 bugzilla. > On the other hand http://bugzilla.xfree86.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1128 > is about your exact same bug report. It tells that disbling XKB is > another solution for this problem. Those are patch sequence number from the (private) XFree86 patches mailing list, not Bugzilla IDs. There's no way to get at those patches as they were submitted unless you're a member of The XFree86 Project, Inc., but since they have cvsweb open, the patches as applied *can* be retrieved. I'm familiar with David Dawes's commit log conventions, and I suspect from the above that the patches were applied as submitted, with cosmetic changes at most. > According to the URL above, upstream did not consider changing current > definitions (and this statement is less than 1 month old), so they > should certainly be patched with great caution only. In other words, > Debian maintainers won't (IMHO of course) apply patches in this area > unless they are approved by XFree86 upstream. But they might instead > backport upstream patches, e.g. to provide the "srvrkeys:none" option > described in the URL above. So if you want to see this (or any other) > problem fixed in Debian XFree86 4.3, you could try to identify patches > applied upstream, and request that they get backported into Debian. Yes, and if someone would do this, we can take a serious look at applying them. Hence why I'm not sure the bug should be closed; just tagged "moreinfo" until it can be tagged "patch". Denis, if you agree, please do this. -- G. Branden Robinson | The basic test of freedom is Debian GNU/Linux | perhaps less in what we are free to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | do than in what we are free not to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | do. -- Eric Hoffer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
