[Bug 478] Review Request: dosemu - dos emulator for Linux

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=478





--- Comment #4 from solarflow99 at gmail.com  2009-04-03 02:08:43 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Just continuing the current status here:
> 
> SPEC: http://jzygmont.fedorapeople.org/dosemu.spec
> SRPM: http://jzygmont.fedorapeople.org/dosemu-1.4.0-2.1868svn.src.rpm
> 
> http://jzygmont.fedorapeople.org/dosemu.spec
> 
> (In reply to comment #47)
> > (In reply to comment #46)
> > > > 1.) Source files
> > > > 
> > > > Please comment on how did you get these:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > You mean comment where I got it in the spec file?
> > 
> > Exactly. Like:
> > 
> > # Get revision 1234 from SVN:
> > # svn co -r1234 http://repoistory-url@1234 dosbox
> > # tar --exclude .svn -czf dosbox.tar.gz dosbox
> 
> I see this is done.
> 
> > > > Isn't etc/dosemu.xpm from the source tarball sufficient?
> > > > Source3:        %{name}.xpm
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think I got that idea from the dosbox spec file, I can change it if
> > > necessary.
> > 
> > Yup. Just droop the Source3 and replace %{SOURCE3} with etc/dosemu.xpm
> 
> Done as well.
> 
> > > > 2.) FreeDOS image
> > > > 
> > > > I don't believe this is formally allowed (shipping binaries), though other
> > > > packages do this (say, qemu includes bochs bios image).  I'll ask on packaging
> > > > list how to deal with this and let you know.
> 
> Soo, I believe you should add the source for the FreeDOS image to the srpm, so
> that we distribute it and therefore comply with GPL. Or ask FreeDOS people for
> permission to distribute it w/o source.

ok, i'd prefer to ask them if I can just ship the binary image alone, is a copy
of an email ok for this?




-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.