Le 27/09/2013 22:16, Alec Leamas a
écrit :
On 09/27/2013 10:02 PM, Richard Shaw
wrote:
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:
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