On 29.07.2015 02:27, Christopher Meng wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 10:31 PM, Marcin Haba
> I am trying to contribute Fedora about Baculum WebGUI (BugZilla
> 1203018). This WebGUI uses PHP framework (PRADO framework) that is not
> available in Fedora packages.
I've seen your thread on Debian. Now Fedora.
Yes, that is me. I am trying to add Baculum to Debian.
Does it make any problem?
> My first question is: if first should I try to contribute Fedora
> PRADO Framework and then try to contribute Fedora about Baculum? I would
> not provide bundled framework to Fedora.
Many PHP frameworks contain exploits, you must maintain them
separately. In my memory, PRADO, CI, Zend and even Horde had exploits
in the past. Grab more on exploit-db if you don't know.
Yes, one exploit in exploit-db for functional tests in old PRADO
version. It has been fixed long time ago.
> Second my issue is that PHP framework itself contains bundled
> from which part is available in Fedora packages (for example:
> prototype.js, script.aculo.us, tinymce editor...etc.) and a part that
> is not available in Fedora packages.
Based on policy you must unbundle these js, even build them from
source. But you can try asking for a bundle lib exception at
FPC(though I don't have idea about those guys) of them. Web assets
packaging policy has been around for years.
Thanks for this advise.
I am going to unbundle all bundled libs in PRADO and report as feature
request every lib not available in Fedora packages yet.
If can I do this work self then I prefer that way. If occur some
troubles with packaging not possible to solve by me, then I try to
consider sending ask to FPC, if the cause will be reasonable.
> I would avoid situation that at the start for provide Baculum I
> become a maintainer 30 other packages :-)
You jumped into the fire on your own. ;-)
Yes, Indeed :-)
> Last information is that Baculum uses raw framework without 3rd
> libraries. For preparing buildroot files in Spec I just not include 3rd
> party code from upstream tar.gz archive. Maybe this information can make
> something easier?
You need to make sure it works. And you may lose users because they
may prefer the one with PRADO, they still install on their own and
never use package manager to install a raw framework.
And that's why many people don't package something like what you are
packaging, totally a mess.
I do not know how does it look in case other framework projects. I do
not think that in case PRADO. In my opinion it is reliable project.
We will see during packaging process what type of problems do I meet ;-)
Thanks for your mail.