[13199] in Athena Bugs
Re: [jtkohl@MIT.EDU: pickled-herring X server changes]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Basch)
Fri Feb 10 14:04:32 1995
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:04:20 -0500
To: jtkohl@MIT.EDU
Cc: mbarker@MIT.EDU, rsk6swat@MIT.EDU, bugs@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: jtkohl@MIT.EDU's message of Thu, 9 Feb 1995 23:51:19 -0500,
<9502100451.AA10649@banana>
From: "Richard Basch" <basch@MIT.EDU>
It seems that there has been a lot of finger-pointing relating to this
bug report, and I would like to broadly communicate the status and
issues, so that we can quickly close this issue.
Resent-From: John Kohl <jtk@atria.com>
Resent-Date: 9 Feb 1995 23:51:43 -0500
Resent-To: rs6kswat@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 23:51:19 -0500
From: jtkohl@MIT.EDU
The particular line which causes problems is:
keysym Alt_L = Meta_L
On the old setup, there was a key with keysym Alt_L assigned; I wanted
to change that key to send a Meta_L. On the new setup, there is no key
with keysym Alt_L.
Is there something I can use as a CPP symbol to test against, either in
the environment or a .h file?
The other remapping problems all went away when I commented out the
Alt_L thing.
In the 7.7 patch release, a change was introduced that bound the
Alt_L key to be Meta_L, to address a variety of bug reports.
To answer John Kohl's other question, I do not know of a good way of
testing for the existence of this key mapping, but one way of doing a
test, is to piggyback off another change in the 7.7 patch release and
test for KRB5CCNAME, which is now set by xlogin.
I'd like to re-issue John's question--is there something that can be
tested to say there are X changes at this level?
mike
It is the understanding of the rs6kswat team that our AIX 3.2.5
acceptance testing does not include the testing of the 7.7 patch
release. As such, this brings up the following questions:
1. Is the problem that the keyboard remapping was not properly documented
for the 7.7 patch release?
2. Is it our misunderstanding that we should actually be partaking in the
7.7 patch release testing as part of this team's function?
3. Is it merely a case where some of the user-visible changes for the
patch release were overlooked by John?
3. Is it merely a miscommunication that is now resolved?
If Mike's question is in reference to what "user-visible" changes are
expected with the AIX 3.2.5 release, our understanding is:
1. IBM's "info" has a slightly different look and feel.
2. More things work.
Other than that, we are relying on the users' testing of AIX 3.2.5 to
determine if there are other problems of which we are unaware (that is
the testing we are doing to determine if there are additional changes in
3.2.5). As of this time, we have no reason to believe that AIX 3.2.5
introduces other user-visible changes (some issues relating to older AIX
3.2.5 releases were identified and fixed).
-Richard
