[04:37] <ggeorgy> hi =is possible to open a jar file in ubuntu???
[15:15] <JamesPage> lifeless: do you have time to discuss Hudson, Acegi and Spring Security? Know that you have worked in this area in upstream and would value your opinion.
[15:15] <lifeless> just in a meeting right now
[15:15] <lifeless> so yes, but responses will be a little latent
[15:16] <JamesPage> thanks; OK so I've now got to the point with the Hudson packaging work that I'm now looking at Hudson itself in more detail
[15:17] <JamesPage> so at the moment the 1.x codebase uses Acegi security; I've been looking to upgrade to Spring Security as we already have this packaged in Debian/Ubuntu
[15:17] <JamesPage> But then I came across a thread on the Hudson mailing list in late 2009 where this was rejected by upstream.
[15:18] <lifeless> yeah, with a patch from me :)
[15:18] <JamesPage> yep - hence the ping!
[15:18] <lifeless> so the argument was binary incompatability with plugins - also shipped as binaries
[15:19] <JamesPage> OK so for Ubuntu the plan is to build plugins from source as well so we could take the approach of
[15:19] <JamesPage> 1) patch core hudson to use spring security
[15:19] <JamesPage> 2) patch any plugins we package to also use spring security
[15:20] <JamesPage> I like this approach as it means I don't have to go near packaging Acegi (which uses load of old versions of spring)
[15:20] <JamesPage> But it will make packaging plugins in the future more awkward.....
[15:21] <lifeless> it also means that folk can't grab plugins from the plugin site
[15:21] <lifeless> I'd discuss that plan with upstream
[15:21] <lifeless> upgrading to spring would be the awesome
[15:21] <JamesPage> yep - not great :-(
[15:22] <JamesPage> I agree that upgrading would be awesome but I can't see this happening upstream prior to a major tech refresh (potentially with 2.0)
[15:26] <JamesPage> OK I'll ping a question to the dev mailing list a get some opinion...
[15:26] <JamesPage> thanks