Re: [Bug 1030] Review request: xbmc - Media center

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 04:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > OK, an attempt of a short summary: > > > * Technically: *-12 doesn't build for FC13 ;) > > - An API change between rpmfusion's FC12 and FC13's ffmpeg breaks xbmc. > - xbmc is victim of the DSO changes in FC13. > - There is a subtile configure script bug somewhere causing it to > (silently) not to work for FC13. > > I have dirty hacks addressing the 1st and 2nd issues pending, but am > still investigating the latter, yet. Could be one these "autoreconf is > harmful" cases,

> could also be a side-effect of the DSO-changes, could be > something else, ... I don't know yet. > > > * Usability-wise: > - Verify that python works sufficiently. > There have been reports that xbmc's python scripts (python2.4) don't > work on Fedora (python2.6). I haven't see any such python breakdown yet, > so I don't know how to reproduce such breakdown. > > - Decide about what to do with xbmc-standalone. > IMO, it's dysfunctional. > > - Decide about what to do with /usr/bin/xbmc's "core dump feature". > To me, it's nothing but silly. > > > * Perform a legal review. > > - AFAICT, even if putting patent issues aside, xbmc is not [L]GPL'ed, > because it contains subpackages/libraries which are not > [L]GPL-compatible. The original xbmc code certainly is "free", but I am > having strong doubts if all of the libraries they have bundled, are > (e.g. GoAHead, UnRar). > > In Fedora, I would reject this package for "improper licensing" and/or > delegate it for legal review to FE-LEGAL. No idea, about what rpmfusion > wants to do about it. > > - One detail: xbmc contains fonts, which suspiciously look like "bundled > msttcorefonts", but I haven't checked the details, yet. > > > * Packaging-wise/FPG-compliance-wise: xbmc contains many "bundled" > libraries. > > Alex, Rolf and I already removed some of them, but one would have to > check further of them can be replaced with "unbundled" versions and > which of them can't because upstream xbmc has hacked them up. Is it all right if I put this summary into the review request (or if you wanted to do it, that would be fine)?

FWIW, I'd be happy to continue on the original review request.