[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 #6 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> 2012-01-30 20:35:56 CET ---



(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> 
> > #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.
If you look into
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
there's an example. I would just add something like
# zip --exclude \*.svn -r %{source} pcsxr

> 
> (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.
By whom? Packaging people? Upstream? From packaging point of view I think
patching is a perfectly sane thing to do, besides COPYING. But this is anyway 
a minor issue; it's just a little easier to handle rpmlint w/o 33 errors :)

> 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.
Then send them the patch, it might speed up things.

> Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only license I see
It's the AboutDlg key, containing the complete license, with wrong address
(ZIP).

> 
> (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

No apologies, were just trying to make a job together. Deal?

[cut]
> 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.