View Single Post
Posts: 2,076 | Thanked: 3,268 times | Joined on Feb 2011
#40
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Here I agree 100% - I'm not sure if current description brings always "desired" audience to the project... Yet, it's really a *minor* (minorish minor) issue, and if CSSU would have only such problems, I would be happy penguin.
That is also the problem. Main focus on portrait mode is visible through whole this thread. Biggest feature advertised it would seem. Patches introduced incompatiblity in a _must have_ app - xterm a year ago, yet everyone was testing how the screen rotates. I would be a happy penguin if CSSU was just bringing latest upstream versions and properly tested fixes.

Originally Posted by Estel View Post
Also, woody14619 provided some nice links with detailed changelogs. + I totally agree with his rationale about compatibility - sorry szopin, but I remember crawling through pages and pages of discussions, about how PR1.3 resulted in some package being incompatible.

You ask, if maintainers should fork their applications? IMO no, they should write it to work well on latest upstream version (being CSSU Stable now), which 99% of the times meant working well on experimental (CSSU-testing). If it also works nice on PR1.31, PR1.3, PR1.2, PR1.1 and so goes on, it's great. If not, it's generally problem of user refusing to upgrade - after all, it's FOSS, and you don't need to pay for new version...

Of course, if maintainer want to fork program for different (C)SSU's - that's great. As it was stated, it happened many times, when PR1.3 was young. If not maintainer, but someone else want to backport things to older (C)SSU's, that's also great. But, it isn't required.

/Estel
That's not great at all. Latest 'supported' (for whatever it's worth) upstream version of maemo OS is 1.3.1, not leet version. Decisions about keymapping was made probably too long ago to make everyone happy (N810 had similar issues and the patch didn't make it upstream at that time, which would have probably prevented problems currently), but xterm incompatibility 'fix' that claims to:
The fix makes sure the key works as expected under any X Terminal application.
clearly does not do so.
End users refusing to update? You have been on this forum enough to know how easy it is to contact maintainers of apps from a year ago to rebuild/update. Sad, but every backwards incompatible 'fix' is a mess
 

The Following User Says Thank You to szopin For This Useful Post: