Re: Old Red Hat Bugzilla bug reports with popt issues
On Aug 14, 2007, at 5:16 PM, Robert Scheck wrote: Evening Jeff, On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: and there's at least one other old popt "bug" report in bugzilla misassigned to rpm. which one exactly? Hopefully, you don't want to play hide and seek with me. Do you know the number or any detail? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=205849 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119782 73 de Jeff -- All the bug numbers, all the details, all the time ... smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: Old Red Hat Bugzilla bug reports with popt issues
Evening Jeff, On Tue, 14 Aug 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: > and there's at least one other old popt "bug" report in bugzilla > misassigned to rpm. which one exactly? Hopefully, you don't want to play hide and seek with me. Do you know the number or any detail? Greetings, Robert __ POPT Library http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List [email protected]
Re: Old Red Hat Bugzilla bug reports with popt issues
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:49 AM, Göran Uddeborg wrote: - Bugzilla Bug 102254: popt messages need explicit domain with dgettext() https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102254 -> As per http://rpm5.org/cvs/chngview?cn=8187, this bug report IMHO seems to be partially solved; any comments Göran? I haven't looked at the patch, but I tried to rebuild popt-1.12-1 as you suggested. It did, however, NOT help. (See my bugzilla comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102254#c25 for details.) Either its not fixed, or I miss something. What you miss is that there are 2 strings in popt.h, which are added to application tables, but need to use the "popt" domain. The patch compares msgid values and uses dgettext in the "popt" domain when encountered. Technically, since the strings are compiled into application popt tables, the strings should be handled by the application, not popt. But all depends on whether the 2 occurences of N_(...) are seen when generating application PO tables. 73 de Jeff __ POPT Library http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List [email protected]
Re: Old Red Hat Bugzilla bug reports with popt issues
On Aug 14, 2007, at 3:14 AM, Robert Scheck wrote: On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: What is the copyright issue? Claiming "claimed about this" helps nothing. The files test3.c, popint.c and system.h are missing the license header. AFAIK these files were introduced by the patch mentioned in bug #178413. Actually, only poptint.c was added, the other two have never had copyright text associated. Since I don't know the copyright intent of any of the above, nor do I wish to make the effort to inquire, I leave exactly as is. Further comments or hints? On what? On the weather, how the coffee tastes, whether the cookies are well but mainly to my e-mail ;) Weather hinting at autumn, coffee freshly brewed, lemon pound cake instead of cookies, and there's at least one other old popt "bug" report in bugzilla misassigned to rpm. 73 de Jeff __ POPT Library http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List [email protected]
Re: Old Red Hat Bugzilla bug reports with popt issues
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Jeff Johnson wrote: > What is the copyright issue? Claiming "claimed about this" helps nothing. The files test3.c, popint.c and system.h are missing the license header. AFAIK these files were introduced by the patch mentioned in bug #178413. >> Further comments or hints? > On what? On the weather, how the coffee tastes, whether the cookies are well but mainly to my e-mail ;) Greetings, Robert __ POPT Library http://rpm5.org Developer Communication List [email protected]
Re: Old Red Hat Bugzilla bug reports with popt issues
On Aug 13, 2007, at 5:49 PM, Robert Scheck wrote: Good evening all, I'll get the popt maintainer at Fedora and Panu from Red Hat is likely to get co-maintainer once the package is reviewed. And for reviewing a package there should be no open bug reports at all, so I'm walking through these: - Bugzilla Bug 102254: popt messages need explicit domain with dgettext() https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102254 -> As per http://rpm5.org/cvs/chngview?cn=8187, this bug report IMHO seems to be partially solved; any comments Göran? The "partially solved" is waiting for your confirmation (or not). I gave you the patch. - Bugzilla Bug 135428: popt : -help outputs unaligned descriptions, in case of != https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=135428 -> I would agree, it isn't possible to solve this bug report from the logical way Hu Zheng if this problem exists in latest popt, too. I quote comment #12 from 2007-02-08: If not fixed, I'll also need some help getting a reproducer together. I have also asked (repeatedly) whether the problem still exists. no clue. I did insure that CY aligns correctly, Welsh UTF8 with wide characters, many years ago. I can't fix what I can't see. - Bugzilla Bug 178413: none UTF-8 messages for GNOME applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178413 The patch was merged into HEAD, but License/Copyright for the newly added files is missing, one of the Fedora guys claimed about this. What is the copyright issue? Claiming "claimed about this" helps nothing. - Bugzilla Bug 202061: Request for more user-friendly RPM documentation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=202061 IMHO this bug report is resolved, as I can't see such an issue in a current popt version; the user-friendly thing is IMHO rpm not popt. Fixed. Further comments or hints? On what? 73 de Jeff
