Hi, Quoting Birger Schacht (2025-11-10 15:15:04) > On 11/10/25 11:06 AM, Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues wrote: > > [email protected] seems to be disfunctional. I'm forwarding this to > > the maintainers directly. > > The CC: had [email protected] which is not > [email protected] ;)
wow, even with you saying that it took me a lot of staring until I figured out the difference. :D > >>> I am the maintainer of the xdg-terminal-exec package in Debian. I am > >>> willing to have the xdg-terminal-exec package install that file (like > >>> already happens for GNOME and Ubuntu) but we should probably get approval > >>> from the sway package maintainer for its contents. (Or sway could ship > >>> its own file.) > >> > >> I am not attached to the file being shipped by reform-tools and I agree > >> with > >> your argument that it probably should be living elsewhere. I kept sway > >> maintainers in CC and would like to ask them if they want to ship the file > >> some > >> place. > > I don't think sway is the right package for shipping a configuration > file for xdg-terminal-exec. Once/if the proposal is accepted, it might > make sense to propose this in upstream sway. Feel free to ship it in > xdg-terminal-exec. Jeremy, could I get back on your offer to include the file into xdg-terminal-exec? Would you like me to remove the file first or are you planning to upload a version of xdg-terminal-exec with that file (creating a conflict, don't forget to add the Conflicts: reform-tools (=1.81-2)) and then I can upload a reform-tools with a Depends: on xdg-terminal-exec (>= XXX)? What do you think? Thanks! cheers, josch
signature.asc
Description: signature
