bsh and jEdit
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,
I'm packaging jEdit which builds against a modified version of bsh.
Here [1], you can find a diff between our bsh 2.0b4 and jEdit bsh.

Do you think it's possible to merge these jedit changes with Debian bsh?
What impact for packages that depend on bsh?
Otherwise, I might include Debian bsh sources in jedit package and apply
that patch. Personally I prefer the second option but I would like to
know some java developers thoughts.
I CCed last 2 bsh uploaders.

Thanks,
Gabriele


[1] http://paste.debian.net/54269/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkt3L6MACgkQp3cdCbVcnCvHoACbBWsSt40HKG rw8fZIXMXRrgiy
4M8Anigya9J4GPZ5vy5huk9C7CSWUcEZ
=obCK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/<4B772FA4.7070403@gmail.com>

bsh and jEdit
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gabriele Giacone wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm packaging jEdit which builds against a modified version of bsh.
> Here [1], you can find a diff between our bsh 2.0b4 and jEdit bsh.
>
> Do you think it's possible to merge these jedit changes with Debian bsh?
> What impact for packages that depend on bsh?
> Otherwise, I might include Debian bsh sources in jedit package and apply
> that patch. Personally I prefer the second option but I would like to
> know some java developers thoughts.
> I CCed last 2 bsh uploaders.
>
> Thanks,
> Gabriele
>
>
> [1] http://paste.debian.net/54269/
Sorry for the wrong link.

Right one http://paste.debian.net/56360

Thanks,
Gabriele
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuFjycACgkQp3cdCbVcnCvOtgCfdqAJyaDrGa VLEUUJMuUSCp6X
tcsAoMlmAwO46zTO8YE+ojjpPVWlhb54
=GtOO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4B858F27.9030108@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4B858F27.9030108@gmail.com

bsh and jEdit
 

Gabriele Giacone wrote:
> Gabriele Giacone wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I'm packaging jEdit which builds against a modified version of bsh.
>> Here [1], you can find a diff between our bsh 2.0b4 and jEdit bsh.
>
>> Do you think it's possible to merge these jedit changes with Debian bsh?
>> What impact for packages that depend on bsh?
>> Otherwise, I might include Debian bsh sources in jedit package and apply
>> that patch. Personally I prefer the second option but I would like to
>> know some java developers thoughts.
>> I CCed last 2 bsh uploaders.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Gabriele
>
>
>> [1] http://paste.debian.net/54269/
> Sorry for the wrong link.
>
> Right one http://paste.debian.net/56360
>
> Thanks,
> Gabriele

Hi

Could you give a unified diff (diff -u): personally I find it easier to
read and it gives bit of context as well.

~Niels


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4B8590B2.4030604@thykier.net">http://lists.debian.org/4B8590B2.4030604@thykier.net

bsh and jEdit
 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Niels Thykier wrote:
[...]
>>> Do you think it's possible to merge these jedit changes with
>>> Debian bsh? What impact for packages that depend on bsh?
>>> Otherwise, I might include Debian bsh sources in jedit package
>>> and apply that patch. Personally I prefer the second option but I
>>> would like to know some java developers thoughts.
[...]
> Could you give a unified diff (diff -u): personally I find it easier
> to read and it gives bit of context as well.

That's it
http://paste.debian.net/61335/

Gabriele
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkuFlfgACgkQp3cdCbVcnCsZhwCgs9hxozFIrt N4IK9Q2sXoOApT
X8wAoKLk2IEB1OK3q2DcczjbSHzw5Icr
=CopN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4B8595F8.8080308@gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4B8595F8.8080308@gmail.com

bsh and jEdit
 

Hello Gabriele,

Since this version of bsh uses a different package for its classes and
has a few jEdit patches, I think that it would be fine to simply ship it
in the jEdit package. It's quite unlikely to be used outside of jEdit.

Cheers,
Ludovic

Gabriele Giacone a écrit :
> Niels Thykier wrote:
> [...]
>>>> Do you think it's possible to merge these jedit changes with
>>>> Debian bsh? What impact for packages that depend on bsh?
>>>> Otherwise, I might include Debian bsh sources in jedit package
>>>> and apply that patch. Personally I prefer the second option but I
>>>> would like to know some java developers thoughts.
> [...]
>> Could you give a unified diff (diff -u): personally I find it easier
>> to read and it gives bit of context as well.
>
> That's it
> http://paste.debian.net/61335/
>
> Gabriele


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-java-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4B85A61B.1090900@laposte.net">http://lists.debian.org/4B85A61B.1090900@laposte.net

bsh and jEdit
 

>
> Hello Gabriele,
>
> Since this version of bsh uses a different package for its classes and
> has a few jEdit patches, I think that it would be fine to simply ship it
> in the jEdit package. It's quite unlikely to be used outside of jEdit.
>

[...]

I don't quite see these as good reasons for shipping bsh twice. In fact, it
makes things a lot worse. The worst case is of course security bugs in bsh; the
fixes of which have to be ported to jEdit. This is hardly doable if jEdit has
this somewhat-modified-but-pretty-similar code base in it.

Anyway, I've been discussing this with Gabriele already and what we came up with
is the attempt to take bsh's upstream/Debian sources and determine the smallest
posssible diff/patch. Then we could build jedit by applying this patch, which
makes the changes well documented, at least. If the necessary changes could be
merged back into bsh it would be even better, of course.

Best,
Michael