On 09/28/2013 12:48 PM, Alexandre Moine wrote:
Le 27/09/2013 22:16, Alec Leamas a écrit :
On 09/27/2013 10:02 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alexandre Moine <nobrakal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Hi all,

I'm a new packager in the RpmFusion Project, and in the Fedora Project
in general.
I submitted a review request of the openmw package [1] [2]. And I've a
problem. Openmw include 2 bundled package. So, I apply to make two
exceptions. This is the reason:

For shiny:
Per upstream it is designed to be copied in and is not a stand alone
library.
https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt

For oics:
Modified from upstream source.

You can also read our discussion in the openmw forum [3].

Links:
[1]: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921
[2]: https://openmw.org/en/
[3]: http://forum.openmw.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1671&start=30

Please, if you have any question, ask me :)

Of course you get my vote, but I'm biased. :)

Richard

To be a little formal, you are required to provide answers to the standard questions in [1] before there is a decision. If you try to answer those, things will be much easier to sort out.
Oh sorry, I forgot that:
Has the library behaviour been modified? No for shiny, it is developped by a member of the openmw project. Yes for Oics. It is modified to work with sdl.
Why haven't the changes been pushed to the upstream library? I don't know... But the team has been heavy modified the code.
Could we make the forked version the canonical version within Fedora? No, oics is designed to work with openmw. For shiny, it can't to work alone
Are the changes useful to consumers other than the bundling application? No, for the same. Oics is designed for openmw. For shiny, I don't know, but I think not. It's really designed for openmw.
What is the attitude of upstream towards bundling? The writer of shiny is very sympatic (@scrawl). For the writer of OICS, i don't know.
Overview of the security ramifications of bundling.The sources is sure (it's remake by developpers of openmw, not dangerous)
Does the maintainer of the Fedora package of the library being bundled have any comments about this?  The package does not exist.
Is there a plan for unbundling the library at a later time? For now, no. It's difficult to do this, and the openmw have other fish to fry! But, with the time, maybe.
Please include any relevant documentation:

shiny project: https://github.com/scrawl/shiny
OICS: http://sourceforge.net/projects/oics/

The discussion about this on the openmw wiki: http://forum.openmw.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1671&start=30

Thank you very much Richard ;)

Alexandre


--alec

PS Yes, its a pain... been there, done that. ;) DS

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_questions



-- 
Alexandre, Fedora User and Ambassador
Hm, lets try to split this discussion into two: one for shiny and one for OICS.

For shiny: is there a problem to package this separately? The code is unmodified, so you could just unbundle a new shiny package, and make sure it works with openmw? There is something I don't really get here.

It might be that the shiny package just is some source code and not actually linked against.  But that does preclude making a separate package IMHO.   However, we need more input on this -  I',m on thin ice here.

--alec