Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hm. Yes. > > I dislike maintaining the potential security nightmare of an FCK fork as > integral part of MoinMoin.
I'm not sure where this "security nightmare" is coming from. Are you asserting that nobody upstream cares to patch security holes in FCK distributed with Moin? > I really would prefer that the Debian fckeditor package adopted the > changes done by MoinMoin and maintain both "branches" of FCK. That seems highly unlikely to me, and I certainly wouldn't accept that if I were the Debian FCK maintainer. That would mean working with two upstreams, and one branch that only was useful with one particular software page. The Moin people are maintaining their branch and integrating it with their software, so it makes sense to me to have it shipped with Moin. > If that is not possible (or too much work), then as I see it the second > best would be for the moin source package to package the moin-fckeditor > as a separate optional binary package. That would be a sensible compromise to me. You could simply apt-get install python-moinmoin python-moinmoin-fckeditor to get what amounts to the full upstream distribution then, right? What's more, making that happen should be a completely trivial task given that you already have the infrastructure to delete the files. You could just move them into a separate binary package at build time. Though I would have to wonder at this -- what's the point? Wouldn't it be just as good to ship a default config file that disables the GUI editor? > Third best IMO would be to improve current approach to at least make it > possible to (unofficially and unsupportedly) add back the ripped out > fckeditor, and provide documentation with the package on how to do so. I think that a separate binary package is much preferable. -- John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
