On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 05:49:20PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > Norbert Tretkowski wrote: > >> I decided to disable the charset patch introduced in -22 again, > >> because it leads to some problems which I think aren't acceptable > >> for a stable release (e.g. #411667).
> >> Please unblock slrn 0.9.8.1pl1-28 which has this patch disabled. > > Your upload seems to disable three different patches, not just one; > > why was it not sufficient to disable the last, "fallback_charset" patch, > > given that it was stated in the bug report that the crash only happens > > when fallback_charset is set? > Because there are too much broken newsreaders in the world (see #406210) which > do not declare a charset in the header of articles, and there's no way to > specify > a default charset for broken articles with only the charset patch enabled > (without > the fallback_charset patch). Sorry, but how does enabling utf8 support in slrn make the lack of a default charset for broken articles any worse than it already is? If I'm in a utf-8 locale (which will be the default for etch after all), how is not having the utf8 patch better than having the utf8 patch but not the fallback_charset patch? And if I'm in a non-UTF8 locale, how is not having the utf8 patch better than having the utf8 patch w/o fallback_charset? It sounds to me like dropping these other patches causes a regression in terms of utf8 support for etch with no gain, which is IMHO a rather big deal. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
