- Passed security review or already Wikimedia deployed
- Voting CI structure tests
- Runs MediaWiki-CodeSniffer
- Runs phan
- Supports MySQL, SQLite, and Postgres (no schema changes)
- GPL v2 or later compatible license
- Extension's default configuration provides optimal experience
- Tested with web installer
|Duplicate||None||T194266 Expand the set of bundled skins|
|Invalid||None||T178349 Expand the set of bundled extensions and skins to achieve a default MediaWiki experience that's comparable to Wikimedia sites|
|Resolved||None||T209220 Expand the set of bundled extensions and skins in MediaWiki 1.34|
|Resolved||Jdforrester-WMF||T191737 Bundle Scribunto extension with MediaWiki|
|Resolved||CCicalese_WMF||T109873 Scribunto uses deprecated SyntaxHighlight_GeSHi methods|
While Scribunto does not require CodeEditor, if both are enabled, the following should probably be set:
$wgScribuntoUseCodeEditor = true;
Similarly, Scribunto does not require SyntaxHighlight, but if both are enabled, the following should probably be set:
$wgScribuntoUseGeSHi = true;
There are two deprecation warnings in Scribunto when used with SyntaxHighlight:
Deprecated: Use of SyntaxHighlight::prepare is deprecated. [Called from ScribuntoContent::fillParserOutput in /WIKIFARM/MEDIAWIKI/mediawiki-master/extensions/Scribunto/includes/common/ScribuntoContent.php at line 128] in /WIKIFARM/MEDIAWIKI/mediawiki-master/includes/debug/MWDebug.php on line 309
Deprecated: Use of SyntaxHighlight::buildHeadItem is deprecated. [Called from ScribuntoContent::fillParserOutput in /WIKIFARM/MEDIAWIKI/mediawiki-master/extensions/Scribunto/includes/common/ScribuntoContent.php at line 141] in /WIKIFARM/MEDIAWIKI/mediawiki-master/includes/debug/MWDebug.php on line 309
License review: I talked with @lfaraone (Debian FTP master) and he's concerned about the lua 5.1 binaries that are included with Scribunto. Are the Windows/macOS binaries fully free software (are they linked with any proprietary Windows/macOS library)? I think I read somewhere that @Anomie used centos with an old glibc to build the Linux binaries so that should all be free software.
T72541#1805584 and subsequent comments describe the build process used.
The "generic" build target doesn't statically link anything and only dynamically links libm, and the instructions for building on Windows don't specify linking against anything at all, although in any case I suppose it'll also link with the equivalent of libc.
I have no idea how to determine whether the binaries are "fully" free software in the face of dynamic linking. It seems even actual lawyers disagree.
Ping WMF-Legal? I don't see there being an answer to that question until an actual tech lawyer steps up. And it wouldn't surprise me much if two different lawyers gave two (or more) different opinions, so even that might not help.
And even if our lawyers tell us it's ok, Debian may well decide differently and strip out the Windows and Mac binaries from their package anyway. Which wouldn't really be a bad thing, since Debian users aren't going to need those binaries anyway and people who do need them aren't at all likely to get MediaWiki from Debian.