* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Package: firefox > Version: 1.5.dfsg-2 > Followup-For: Bug #309995 > > As of 1.5.dfsg-2, the rendering problem for Indic scripts is still > present. I think the earlier presumption that version 1.1 (which > AFAIK has been numbered 1.5 instead) would have the proper settings > enabled by default never panned out... or perhaps the Debian > developers are turning those settings off when they build firefox. > > I moreover submit that this bug should be at least at the "normal" > severity level. No one here is asking that new functionality be added > (the functionality is already present but turned off), nor has > evidence been provided that the bug is "very difficult to fix due to > major design considerations." (Quote from the explanation of severity > levels at:http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities > <http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities>.) Also the fact > that Sunil was able to build it and that Ubuntu apparently also has a > properly built package indicates that there is nothing "very > difficult" here.
You seem to be taking a rather aggressive tone here implying I've willfully excluded support for Indic scripts, which really couldn't be further from the truth. Looking at the bug log for this bug, it seems it was just Pango support that was needed to make Indic scripts function. Well it's there. Do apt-cache show firefox and you'll see pango is one of the dependencies. So I'm not sure why this wouldn't work. Do you know if Ubuntu is doing something we're not? -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
