On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 10:29, Matthew Palmer wrote: > If the patches would be of general use, I'd try and get them incorporated > into the Debian package for scintilla, even if upstream won't take them
Good point, I'll look at this. > (I'd > try and work out amongst those involved *why* it's not being accepted > upstream). AFAIK the gPHPEdit developer has been trying to get it included for a while (IIRC there are bugs in upstream GtkScintilla WRT mouse scroll events) and isn't getting anywhere. I doubt my intervention in the situation will help, although it's worth a try. > otherwise breaks normal function), then it's time to consider static > linking. I don't know if the patched version of scintilla is included with > upstream's sources for gPHPEdit, but if it is, you're home free. If not, > you'll have to fudge it into the source package somehow - by giant diff or > rebuilding the source package, whichever you think will be better. The patched GtkScintilla is distributed "with" gPHPEdit, but as a separate tarball. The instructions for gPHPEdit say to build and install the patched GtkScintilla first. From a purely packaging POV it would be much cleaner to make 2 packages rather than have to merge the GtkScintilla build into each version of the gPHPEdit package, but... > Before all the shared object people kill me, if it's only going to be of > practical use to this one application, archive space will be saved by *not* > making a separate library package. Scream "slippery slope" all you like. I absolutely agree. That's why I've been pondering the best approach, I really don't want to add a whole extra package just for this since it'd be unlikely to be used by anything else. Thanks for the suggestions Matt. Cheers :-) Jonathan