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

Re: aMSN and BWidget



On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 11:43 -0700, Wart wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Sander Hoentjen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I am the maintainer of aMSN in Extras, and there is currently a bug in
> > the FE version of aMSN.
> 
> Do you have a bugzilla #?

no but i do have:
http://amsn.sourceforge.net/bugs/admin/index.php?show=bug&id=49

> 
>  This bug occurs because upstream aMSN uses it's
> > own modified version of BWidget. Most of the changes are minor so that
> > is why it was decided to use the already packaged bwidget version for FE
> > amsn. It turns out however that one of the changes is really needed. I
> > reported this change to upstream and I hope they will incorporate it but
> > i haven't had a reply yet (only 2 days since i reported, so it can still
> > come).
> > In the meantime the bug is still there, and there are a few possible
> > fixes:
> > 1) I put the modified bwidget in the amsn package and use that
> 
> Ick.  Please no.
> 
> > 2) I modify amsn so it can work with the bwidget that is in extras (it
> > will result in a bit reduced functionality (not being able to choose
> > chat font color anymore)
> 
> Doesn't amsn already work around these private bwidget changes?  I seem
> to recall that amsn redefines some of the bwidget procs after bwidgets
> has been loaded.  Can a similar thing be done here?

not easily, but if the change is not accepted upstream i might put
myself to doing that anyway.
> 
> > 3) a small patch is applied to bwidget (which is 100% backwards
> > compatible, it only adds an optional option)
> 
> As the FE maintainer of bwidget, I'd be willing to add this patch to the
> FE package.  File a bug against bwidget in bugzilla.redhat.com and
> attach your patch.

ok, #200809
> 
> > My hope is the change will be in upstream bwidget in the future, and if
> > that would happen option 3 seems the nicest one, but if it won't happen
> > i would prefer option 1. What are others (wart?) opinions about this?
> 
> Upstream bwidgets seems to be a bit slow about making new releases (the
> last one was in 2003), so the best option seems to be to patch bwidget
> in FE.
> 
Yes but if the change is at least in their cvs it "feels better" to me.


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