severity 241923 minor retitle 241923 xbase-clients: [xmodmap] manpage sucks tag 241923 + upstream thanks
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 09:36:20PM +0200, Jan Minar wrote:
> Package: xbase-clients
> Version: 4.1.0-16
> Severity: important
> File: /usr/X11R6/bin/xmodmap
>
> Hi!
>
> The xmodmap's manpage is unclear, vague, and confusing, to say the
> least. I don't understand e.g. what the keysym columns are for--in one
> place, the manpage reads:
>
> | The first keysym is used when no modifier key is pressed in conjunction
> | with this key, the second with Shift, the third when the Mode_Switch key
> | is used with this key and the fourth when both the Mode_Switch and Shift
> | keys are used.
>
> But further on, I learned that:
>
> | [A]pplications that need a Meta key simply need to get the keycode and
> | don't require the keysym to be in the first column of the keymap
> | table. This means that applications that are looking for a Multi_key
> | (including the default modifier map) won't notice any change.
> |
> | % xmodmap -e "keysym Multi_key = Multi_key Meta_L"
>
> What the h*** is this?
Documentation bugs are generally considered of "minor" severity in
Debian. I do not think the severity "important" is appropriate for this
bug. Apart from that, though, I agree with you. I've been working on X
for 6 years and I can't give you an easy answer.
The first paragraph you quoted, I understand.
The second, I don't.
minor
a problem which doesn't affect the package's usefulness, and is
presumably trivial to fix.[1]
I'll happily accept patches to the manpage from an xmodmap guru.
[1] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities
--
G. Branden Robinson | Somewhere, there is a .sig so funny
Debian GNU/Linux | that reading it will cause an
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | aneurysm. This is not that .sig.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
