Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Code::Blocks, Scintilla and Fedora
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: jens on October 24, 2010, 03:28:18 pm ---but it can also be a problem with our own scintilla sources (harder to maintain in case of security problems or other issues).
--- End quote ---
What do you mean by that? I didn't get it... we are already maintaining this ourselves, so what would be the difference?!
And yes: I agree with Biplab. But only if we believe Fedora is that important. I am not so much into Linux as you know so I cannot make such a decision. As long as Ubuntu is not based on Fedora it would be no problem for me (and only me).
Jenna:
I don't mean it's a problem for us, but probably for the fedora maintainers, because having two different sources (one for the official shared library and one inside C::B's sources) can be a problem.
The package maintainers normally have to react if possible security risks (or other system-relevant issues) are discovered, and they normally do not wait until upstream fixes the problem, they have to fix this immediately and that can be a problem for the person who maintains the C::B package for fedora.
But maybe they say, unless it's restricted to C::B, because of using a statically linked lib, it's no problem.
oBFusCATed:
Jen, does Scintilla (not wxScintilla) has changes in svn?
I think that the lib will be marked bundled no matter if it is static or dynamic.
Some info why packagers hate bundled libs (gentoo related):
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/01/02/bundling-libraries-for-despair-and-insecurity
http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2010/04/17/a-visible-case-against-bundled-libraries
Jenna:
--- Quote from: oBFusCATed on October 24, 2010, 10:22:02 pm ---Jen, does Scintilla (not wxScintilla) has changes in svn?
--- End quote ---
We use patched scintilla sources for several reasons.
If you search the wxscintilla folder in our svn-sources for C::B begin, you will find many changes, not only in wxScintilla and I think it's not possible to move all these changes into wxscintilla.
Many of the changes do not make sense in scintilla upstream, or will not be accepted (as the changebar-code).
So we will either be forced to use "our" scintilla or lose a lot of (basically) functionality, if we would switch to plain scintilla.
MortenMacFly:
--- Quote from: jens on October 24, 2010, 10:43:13 pm ---So we will either be forced to use "our" scintilla or lose a lot of (basically) functionality, if we would switch to plain scintilla.
--- End quote ---
I think we CAN go with a bundled version of scintilla. Basically we have forked both: wxScintilla and scintilla for our purposes. It makes no sense to me if due to Fedora "laws" forks would become basically forbidden. Especially in the case of wxScintilla which is no longer supported for ages meanwhile and where we wouldn't even have another option. To me the only solution is either a statically binding or forbid forks of software components which is the end of development. Period.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version