package review: Is it a must to use system libraries ?

[Hans de Goede]

Julian Sikorski wrote:
> David Juran pisze:
>> On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 20:15 +0100, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've been working on review of bsnes [1]. One of the issues raised
>>>>> before I began was the upstream source includes some libraries, some
>>>>> of which are already packaged and included in either fedora or rpmfusion.
>> The fedora packaging guidelines are quite clear on this point,
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplication_of_system_libraries IMHO, this is a very good principle and should apply to rpmfusion as well.
>>
>>> Is the fact that bsnes uses patched snes_ntsc, and that the said patch
>>> is not necessarily compatible with other apps using the lib a good
>>> enough reason?
>> Without knowing any details of the particulars, it seems we really are
>> talking about a fork here. So what the question boils down to, are the
>> patches to snes_ntsc really incompatible or can they be pushed upstream?
>> And if they can't be pushed upstream, is the fork well-maintained and of
>> quality enough to merit it to be included in rpmfusion?
>>
>> /David 
>>  
> I'm not an expert here by any means, so I'll just sum up what we know.
> David Timms checked what the differences are, and found out the
> following (quoting the bugzilla comment).
> So the actual diffs are minimal:
> - change the bpp from 16 to 32
> - set the output type to BRG15
> - modify the actual video processing algorithm
> byuu, bsnes author, said the following [1]:
> Second, I don't think ZSNES uses BGR15 internal mode. So you probably
> won't be able to use the system snes_ntsc library.
> I also highly doubt the ”fork” will be maintained anywhere else apart
> from inside bsnes itself.
> 

Ok, that seems enough of a diversion from the standard snes_ntsc libraray to 
warrant an exception.

Regards,

Hans