FS#37564 - [highlight] shell script highlighting is broken

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by Ulrich Schwab (usch) - Thursday, 31 October 2013, 11:14 GMT
Last edited by Florian Pritz (bluewind) - Monday, 11 November 2013, 19:13 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Upstream Bugs
Status Closed
Assigned To Florian Pritz (bluewind)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:
language definition in upstream project contains a print command which must be removed.

Additional info:
Here a correct version is available:
http://www.andre-simon.de/zip/sh.lang

Steps to reproduce:
This task depends upon

Closed by  Florian Pritz (bluewind)
Monday, 11 November 2013, 19:13 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Comment by Alexander F. Rødseth (xyproto) - Thursday, 31 October 2013, 11:35 GMT
Which package is this bug report for? Please read this before reporting a bug: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines
Comment by Ulrich Schwab (usch) - Thursday, 31 October 2013, 11:48 GMT
highlight

It is known upstream, but the source there still contains the faulty language definition.
Only a corrected version can downloaded separately, see the link above.

I assumed it would be nice if Arch packaging would contain a version without this bug,
even though its an upstream error.
Comment by Florian Pritz (bluewind) - Thursday, 31 October 2013, 14:17 GMT
Stuff like this creates quite a lot of (imho highly unnecessary) work.

I'd have to adjust the sources array and copy the file to the correct place. Then once the next release is out I have to remember that I fixed that so I can remove it again. I also have to check that the next release fixes the bug since the fix is not currently in upstream's svn so it could potentially get lost and then I'd have a regression leading to new bug reports and me putting in that file once more.

Also other distros have to do exactly the same...

Did you ask upstream to release a new version?

Granted, this bug is easy to fix, but I'm against doing stuff like that on principle. (at least as long as the fix is not properly commited so the situation described above could happen)

Loading...