[Bug 2161] Review request: pcsxr - A plugin based PlayStation (PSX) emulator with high compatibility

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161

--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt at hotmail.com> 2012-01-30 19:39:51 CET ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Some sporadic remarks after a quick glance:
> 
> One of the good things with svn is it's unique version nr. Wouldn't it might
> make sense to include it in the release tag .(20120128svn73976) and  in the
> commented svn checkout: 

Good point, I will make this change; Fedora's version guidelines are a little
vague, hence why I omitted the revision number.

> #svn checkout -r 73976 https://pcsxr.svn.codeplex.com/svn/pcsxr
> 
> Also, the source comment is sort of incomplete: checking out the svn repo 
> doesn't give you the zip archive...

I was under the impression it was assumed it would then need to be zipped. If
you can provide me an example used in a current RPMFusion or Fedora package, I
will be fully willing to change it. I will clarify it does not give a zip file
else wise or for the time being.

> Am I wrong thinking you need "Requires(postun): gtk2" and "Requires(postrans):
> gtk2"?

I don't think it is needed, but I will check to make sure when I have a chance.

(In reply to comment #2)
> BTW,33 errors is a bit clumsy even if they could be ignored. And, in ~/bin
> lives fsf-fix.sh, which never, ever will be shown to anyone. As a result, there
> is http://pastebin.com/Z9yCQUct, a patch which fixes everything besides
> COPYING. Use it as you like, possibly forget or trash it. 
> 
> There are similar problems in the .po files, but rmplint doen't care about them
> and they thus  not fixed.

I've been strongly advised not to try and fix source code unless it causes it
not to build. As well, I don't have interest to fix bugs, I will report this
upstream and as soon as it's fixed, update the source to that revision.
Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only license I see
in the *.po files are "This file is distributed under the same license as the
pcsxr package."

(In reply to comment #3)
> [while doing other things]
> The license is not just GPLv2. Using 'licensecheck' I find no GPLv2, but
> instead at least GPLv2+, GPLv3+, BSD, LGPLv2,1+, public domain, a possible
> MIT-variant...

My apologies, I meant to put GPLv2+, not GPLv2. I seem to have been a little
too hasty when posted this spec. As well, I seem to have forgotten to run
licensecheck to make sure the debian-upstream/copyright was correct

> Many (most?) of these seems to be in the various macos/win32 plugins - these
> can just be removed from the source I guess(?) But even so, there are more than
> GPLv2, possibly requiring a license breakdown IMHO.

> Note the file debian-upstream/copyright which explicitly states the license to
> be  GPLv2+, not GPLv2. However, I guess at least the GPLv3+ files means a need
> for a clever solution. 

Worst case scenario is that I ask upstream to fix this issue, or ask permission
to distribute it all under GPLv3+ or all conflicting licenses under a version
of LGPL. As well, I agree, I should have a look through the source and remove
all unnecessary files in order to simplify things, including a custom spin of
the source.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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.