https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2978
--- Comment #9 from Simone Caronni <negativo17(a)gmail.com> 2013-10-04 09:19:50 CEST
---
(In reply to comment #8)
Hi, Simone Caronni good to see you around :)
Nice to see you too :)
Lots of friends here! :D
I've looked at the Russian Fedora package and I think it's horrible. There are
a few things that I really don't like:
- They use different sources for different distribution
- In the case of Fedora they download the rpm and unpack it (why not use the
tarball already?)
- They do a lot of mangling on desktop files etc. which is really not needed,
as rpmlint does not complain
- They create a fake libtiff link, and end up packaging the %_docdir with the
version in it; which breaks the unversioned docdir in Fedora 20:
%doc %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}
%{_bindir}/%{name}
%{_bindir}/%{name}-bin
%{_libdir}/libtiff.so.4
The main problem though is that this does not solve the redistribution
licensing issue..
The official package is not in bad shape at all and a wrapper is needed only
for the environment variable as in comment #4. So any idea on the matter? Close
the review at all? Ship the wrapper only for the variable and the automatic
download of the official rpm?
--
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.