guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [PATCH] gnu: w3m: Switch to Debian's actively maintained fork of w3m


From: Kei Kebreau
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnu: w3m: Switch to Debian's actively maintained fork of w3m.
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2016 09:59:42 -0400
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)

address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:

> Leo Famulari <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:17:18PM -0500, Eric Bavier wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:54:55 -0400
>>> Kei Kebreau <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > From b837111e3ddf406a3b9235538f63af678e3ac741 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> > From: Kei Kebreau <address@hidden>
>>> > Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 17:58:48 -0400
>>> > Subject: [PATCH] gnu: w3m: Switch to Debian's actively maintained
>>> > fork of w3m.
>>> > 
>>> > Fixes some security issues seen here:
>>> > <http://www.openwall.com/lists/oss-security/2016/11/03/3>
>>> > 
>>> > * gnu/packages/patches/w3m-upstream-20120522.patch: New file.
>>> > * gnu/packages/patches/w3m-debian-updates.patch: New file.
>>> > * gnu/packages/w3m.scm (w3m): Switch to Debian's actively maintained
>>> > fork of w3m.
>>> > [source]: Use Debian's tarball and patches. Remove obsolete patches.
>>> > [arguments]: Remove unnecessary modification of %standard-phases.
>>> > * gnu/local.mk (dist_patch_DATA): Register new patches. Remove obsolete
>>> > patches.
>>> > ---
>>> >  gnu/local.mk                                       |     6 +-
>>> >  gnu/packages/patches/w3m-debian-updates.patch | 28498
>>> > +++++++++++++++++++
>>> 
>>> So theirs is the only actively maintained version of w3m and all they
>>> can provide is a 28.5 thousand line patch?  No VCS repository?  There
>>> must be some point at which it would be better for us to fetch the
>>> patch in an origin rather than importing it into our repo.
>>
>> I think we build from their Git repo:
>>
>> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/collab-maint/w3m.git
>>
>> They even offer non-Debian-ized release tags, such as
>> <v0.5.3+git20161031>.
>
> Then we should use that instead of importing all the patches in our own
> repo, IMO.
>
> Kei: would that work for you?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.

It seems simple enough. I'll give it a go.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]