Re: jedit_4.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
- To: Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4r8o@gmail.com>
- Cc: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, security@debian.org, Debian Security <debian-security@lists.debian.org>, Torsten Werner <twerner@debian.org>, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <tolimar@debian.org>
- Subject: Re: jedit_4.3.1+dfsg-1_amd64.changes REJECTED
- From: Michael Tautschnig <mt@debian.org>
- Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 23:43:20 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20100403214319.GF6368@l04.thnet>
- Mail-followup-to: Michael Tautschnig <mt@debian.org>, Gabriele Giacone <1o5g4r8o@gmail.com>, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>, security@debian.org, Debian Security <debian-security@lists.debian.org>, Torsten Werner <twerner@debian.org>, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl <tolimar@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 87hbns1ipr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
- References: <E1NrvsW-0000zv-Uu@ries.debian.org> <4BA10EEA.6080803@gmail.com> <4BA1DE7B.20404@debian.org> <82b06fd61003180322i5a9cec6q714358f43461d5e@mail.gmail.com> <4BA22E19.2090107@debian.org> <82b06fd61003180719x158afd6ej38d80d1a2645888c@mail.gmail.com> <20100318142739.GA32085@laptop165.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <4BB3CD1C.8000005@gmail.com> <[🔎] 87hbns1ipr.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
> * Gabriele Giacone:
>
> > For example openjdk-6-source: source code is in both orig tarball and
> > openjdk-6-source binary package. This is a duplication, isn't it?
>
> First, the duplication refers to source packages. Second,
> openjdk-6-source is like the emacs*-el packages, it provides IDE
> navigation support.
>
> > Regarding jedit, what about adding the creation of bsh-src binary
> > package, adding bsh-src to jedit's Build-Depends and applying jedit
> > patch at build time?
>
> You could use reflection or AOP for that so that you don't need source
> code at all.
>
> However, the correct way is to get the changes you need into the
> upstream version, or adjust the client code. We do this for non-Java
> code all the time.
>
As I understood Gabriele, bsh is dead upstream, so it's actually up to Debian
maintainers of bsh and Gabriele to sort that out, I guess. I haven't yet
understood how intrusive that patch is, i.e., whether it breaks bsh core
functionality or merely extends bsh. Gabriele? bsh maintainers?
Best,
Michael
Attachment:
pgpytWI76bQXv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Reply to: