Your message dated Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:58:16 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#280118: xterm: alt-. gives wrong signal to zsh
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 9 Oct 2003 22:41:57 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Oct 09 17:41:56 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailout08.sul.t-online.com [194.25.134.20] 
        by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1A7jTn-0002G5-00; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 17:41:56 -0500
Received: from fwd01.aul.t-online.de 
        by mailout08.sul.t-online.com with smtp 
        id 1A7f2G-0003Cm-06; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:57:12 +0200
Received: from abrasax.taupan.ath.cx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) by 
fmrl01.sul.t-online.com
        with esmtp id 1A7f1u-13IZ3w0; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 19:56:50 +0200
Received: from friedel by abrasax.taupan.ath.cx with local (Exim 3.36 #1 
(Debian))
        id 1A7f1s-0003Jp-00; Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:56:48 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: XTerm*metaSendsEscape: true has no effect
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: reportbug 2.34
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 19:56:48 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Friedrich Delgado Friedrichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Seen: false
X-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=4.0
        tests=HAS_PACKAGE
        version=2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_09
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.53-bugs.debian.org_2003_10_09 
(1.174.2.15-2003-03-30-exp)

Package: xterm
Version: 4.2.1-12.1
Severity: normal

Meta-keystrokes are ignored by xterm from debian unstable. They work
with current xterm patch (179). Try with xemacs -nw, or whatever
pleases you.

That's all I can say. If you have questions, please ask.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux abrasax 2.4.20 #5 Fri May 2 19:26:52 CEST 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8

Versions of packages xterm depends on:
ii  libc6                     2.3.2-8        GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  libfreetype6              2.1.5-2        FreeType 2 font engine, shared lib
ii  libncurses5               5.3.20030719-2 Shared libraries for terminal hand
ii  libxaw7                   4.2.1-12.1     X Athena widget set library
ii  xlibs                     4.2.1-12.1     X Window System client libraries

-- no debconf information


---------------------------------------
Received: (at 215034-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Dec 2004 18:58:18 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Dec 17 10:58:18 2004
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from dhcp065-026-182-085.indy.rr.com (sisyphus.deadbeast.net) 
[65.26.182.85] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1CfNIv-0000J2-00; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:58:17 -0800
Received: by sisyphus.deadbeast.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
        id D2E2B68C413; Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:58:16 -0500 (EST)
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2004 13:58:16 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#280118: xterm: alt-. gives wrong signal to zsh
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="jho1yZJdad60DJr+"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2004_03_25
X-Spam-Level: 


--jho1yZJdad60DJr+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 06:10:23AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 03:27:11AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > > Upgrading to xterm 4.3.0 caused the (often used) alt-. to send the =
wrong signal
> > > > to zsh (4.0.4 and later) in viins mode.  Alt-. is used in zsh to in=
sert the
> > > > last argument of the previous cmd line.=20
> > > >=20
> > > > The behaviour is as expected in emacs-mode. More importantly it is =
as expected
> > > > in viins mode in any other shell or the console. Downgrading to 4.0=
=2E4 `fixed'
> > > > the problem.
> > >=20
> > > That's one bug report (but it's actually against the X libraries).
> >=20
> > Any idea which one?  Xlib, I guess?  Can you elaborate a bit on what you
> > think is wrong?
>=20
> ugh - I should write this one down.  Lacking more specific information, it
> sounds as if he's running into the one that was confusing meta and alt.=
=20
> googling for "Debian" and "metaSendsEscape", I see for instance #260232,
> #215034.

Well, #260232 was closed a few months ago, and it looks like #215034 should
be:

  Meta-keystrokes are ignored by xterm from debian unstable. They work
  with current xterm patch (179).

Debian unstable has had a version of XTerm more recent than #179 since
4.3.0.dfsg.1-5 (16 Jun 2004) at the latest, and possibly as far back as
4.3.0.dfsg.1-2 (25 May 2004).

I am therefore closing #215034.  If the problem persists, it's likely
caused by something else.

> (I don't know how far along your resolution of it is - thought the number
> of new reports had gone down).

I'm not sure I quite understand you here, but I do not that I am very
confused by the current report if two similar reports were already fixed.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson                |    Imagination was given man to
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    compensate for what he is not, and
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                 |    a sense of humor to console him for
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    what he is.

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkHDLEgACgkQ6kxmHytGonxhMACZAbT7ciQGglHc25RKbKzVq30b
DiIAn2lKyy8tj6TswD4a1BzRR+xeG0ct
=WkQG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--jho1yZJdad60DJr+--

Reply via email to