Overview

Request 545194 revoked

Remove as we still want to drop fortune unless reimplemented using iconv instead of recode.

Loading...

Dr. Werner Fink's avatar

this drop is not acceptable


Tomáš Chvátal's avatar

Dear Werner, should I then translate it as you volunteering to maintain recode? Also, there are alternative implementations for fortune...


Wnereiz Z's avatar

It looks like the upstream used to depend on iconv, but switched to recode (by debian maintainer???). See changelogs in fortune-mod_1.99.1-4.diff.gz.

And there's "bool No_recode = FALSE;" in the code. I simply guess we could change it to TRUE to disable recode dependence. By this maybe some characters cannot be shown correctly but at least it work in most case.


Nikola Pajkovsky's avatar

Not gonna help you. main() contains lines as follows

outer = recode_new_outer(true); request = recode_new_request (outer);

and that means, you have to link to recode. No runtime option will fix that.


Ludwig Nussel's avatar

Tom, your crusade against that unmaintained recode package is honorable but just filing delete requests can be considered offensive. I'm sure fortune can be migrated to a different library. Writing that code is probably easier than having the discussion here :)



David Haller's avatar

Are there actually any bugs/CVEs open against recode? I like it e.g. for its guessing of input (recode ..to_charset), for converting line endings (/LF), for it's "charsets" of e.g. "tex" and "html"...

$ echo "ä" | recode ..tex \"a $ echo "ä" | recode ..h4 ä

Do that with iconv!

I can't find real non-fixed bugs against recode in bugzilla. Why "should" recode be dropped? Just because it hasn't changed in a while? How about it's just solid as a rock? One might check updating to the 3.7 beta2, but besides that?

Hey, if I had written "hello.c" 25 years ago, would it be dropped now only because it's "unmaintained"? Yes, upstream of recode seems dead. But unless anything crops up, why drop it? Gentoo, whose maintainers are quite "trigger-happy" about dropping unmaintained stuff, like qt4 currently (and dropping anything depending on it) are merrily keeping recode (with patches, all available on github) so far.

Just my 2¢.


Stefan Seyfried's avatar

I can make you the maintainer of Base:System/recode, if you want.

Request History
Tomáš Chvátal's avatar

scarabeus_iv created request

Remove as we still want to drop fortune unless reimplemented using iconv instead of recode.


Saul Goodman's avatar

licensedigger accepted review

ok


Factory Auto's avatar

factory-auto added fortune as a reviewer

Submission for fortune by someone who is not maintainer in the devel project (Base:System). Please review


Factory Auto's avatar

factory-auto added repo-checker as a reviewer

Is this delete request safe?


Factory Auto's avatar

factory-auto accepted review

ok


Dominique Leuenberger's avatar

dimstar_suse set openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M as a staging project

Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M"


Dominique Leuenberger's avatar

dimstar_suse accepted review

Picked openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M


Dr. Werner Fink's avatar

WernerFink declined review

IMHO this is more like an attack against free speech


Dr. Werner Fink's avatar

WernerFink declined request

IMHO this is more like an attack against free speech


Tomáš Chvátal's avatar

scarabeus_iv reopened request


Yuchen Lin's avatar

maxlin_factory accepted review

Removing from openSUSE:Factory:Staging:M, re-evaluation needed


Yuchen Lin's avatar

maxlin_factory added factory-staging as a reviewer

Requesting new staging review


Dominique Leuenberger's avatar

dimstar_suse declined request

Guerilla drop of building packages with a clear counter by the maintainer are not acceptable. Work as a team to find a solution, then act accordingly


Tomáš Chvátal's avatar

scarabeus_iv revoked request

openSUSE Build Service is sponsored by