[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#598655: unblock: otrs2/2.4.8+dfsg1-1

Am 16.10.2010 11:51, schrieb Luk Claes:
Why is fckeditor included in the package? What changes are there in the
code base of fckeditor and is that still worth not using the fckeditor
already in the archive?
Yeah that is another building site :/ I already tried to port otrs to
the fckeditor version of Debian, but without success:

I also patched out libjs-yui from otrs a few weeks ago with the
consequence, that the dashboard statistics are not useable anymore.. And
breaking the editor (as you can think a quite important feature) again
before we release - I think this would be a bad idea.
Right, though knowing what the diff is between the packaged fsckeditor
and the one included in the otrs2 sources is the first (and currently
only) step I want you to take. I want to know what changes there are in
the diff to assess whether it's easy to support security wise or when
there are critical issues with it or not.

If I do not have overseen anything, then the changes to the fsckeditor eq zero. Upstream just tried to update fsckeditor to the latest version for 2.4.8, but they have encountered many issues with IE and chrome (if I remember correctly), they reimported the old version (I have just checked in the past this version, no CVE open for this one) and by doing this, whitespaces/EOL have been fucked up, that's why the diff is so bloated and you need -b for diff :)

After the release it would still be a good idea to try to use the
packaged fsckeditor. That might mean it's best to have upstream's
fsckeditor or otrs2 change so they are more compatible and don't need 2
versions of (about) the same code...

I fully agree with you. But I think it is a bit late to experiment now with it :x

But as said above, knowing what changes there are made by otrs2 upstream
to fsckeditor is the first step. Please do show us that diff, TIA.

Do you mean code changes by upstream to the embedded fsckeditor itself? There shouldn't be any code changes.



Reply to: