Bugzilla Bug 193411

As always, patches to follow.  Only octave is missing, then we are through with
you.

Created an attachment (id=131599) [details]
Patch for the ebuild

This fixes Emacs support:
- correct DEPEND
- byte-compilation of Elisp files
- no installation of ESingular, as it is spurious here, it also is coded quite
"creatively" and may contain a security issue
- use eclass functions to properly install all support files
- regenerate Emacs start file in postinst and postrm

Created an attachment (id=131600) [details]
Emacs site-file, to go to ${FILESDIR}

- Will activate code highlighting on sing files
- allows singular to be run from Emacs directly

(In reply to comment #1)
> - no installation of ESingular, as it is spurious here, it also is coded quite
> "creatively" and may contain a security issue

 No security issue, but the code is still very funky...upstream makes use of
mktemp, strcat and strcpy, that leaves room for a lot of vulnerabilities.

Created an attachment (id=131609) [details]
site-file

This is a bit improved as I attached a draft version instead of final the first
time.
My proposal to let users preserve the "ESingular experience" would be, that you
create a script 

#!/bin/sh
emacs --eval '(singular)'

This is similar to what ESingular did, but not the same, but better than
nothing.  Plus an ewarn line in the ebuild this should be enough.

Hi Christian,

Thanks much! With regard to ESingular I really have no opinion since
I don't use emacs at all; your suggestion to create a wrapper sounds
fine to me and that's probably what I will do.

Thanks,
Markus

(In reply to comment #5)
> With regard to ESingular I really have no opinion since I don't use emacs
> at all; your suggestion to create a wrapper sounds fine to me and that's
> probably what I will do.

Not sure if this is really needed. Emacs users typically have an Emacs open all
the time, so why would one start another one by the wrapper script?

Good point, but there may be users who typically fire up
singular via "Esingular" and may be confused if it is gone;
hard to say. Maybe we should just do away with ESingular  
together with a nice big ewarn. If too many users complain
we could always consider providing a wrapper later on.
Does that sound reasonable?

Markus

(In reply to comment #7)
> Good point, but there may be users who typically fire up
> singular via "Esingular" and may be confused if it is gone;

 That was my intention after thinking about it again.

> hard to say. Maybe we should just do away with ESingular  
> together with a nice big ewarn. If too many users complain
> we could always consider providing a wrapper later on.
> Does that sound reasonable?

 That sounds like a solution to me.

(In reply to comment #8)
> > Maybe we should just do away with ESingular together with a nice
> > big ewarn. If too many users complain we could always consider
> > providing a wrapper later on. Does that sound reasonable?
> 
>  That sounds like a solution to me.

+1

This one has been fixed already last week but I somehow
forgot to close the bug.

Thanks a lot for the patches!

cheers,
Markus