Re: Non-redistributable packages: Skype, spotify, ...
On 2013-10-30 19:30, Simone Caronni wrote:
On 30 October 2013 19:12, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com
<mailto:leamas.alec@gmail.com>> wrote:
On the wishlist and/or dead reviews we have some re-distributable
packages such as skype, spotify and msttcore-fonts. After
scratching my head over these I've hacked some silly scripts ,
called them lpf (Local package Factory) and made a package of it.
It's on it's way into fedora, currently in rawhide, f20 and f19
updates-testing.
Using this package it should be simpler to package a thing like
spotify. The downloader lpf-spotfy-client is also on it's way into
fedora, lpf-skype needs a review. The overall idea here is to
have a common framework for these packages simplifying for both
users and packagers. Since they by definition don't contain any
upstream stuff they go into fedora rather than rpmfusion, although
they are on the rpmfusion wishlist.
I don't know if this is a good idea. Time will tell,
I can take the review for lpf-skype, I have already packaged Skype a
hundred times. Link?
You are most welcome!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023714
I have a question regarding all of this. What prevents any kind of
non-free software like Nvidia drivers, Steam, RAR or whatever to go in
Fedora with the same approach?
Basically nothing. However, from a user perspective
I still think a
rpmfusion re-distrbutable package is preferred since lpf cannot really
hide the fact that packages must be downloaded and built -> user needs
to "push the button", long delays and build chain dependencies. Also,
lpf is primarely designed for leaf packages, I don't really sees how it
should work if something depends on a lpf package.
BTW, for other reasons Tom Callaway has decided that every lpf package
should have a legal review. So I feel pretty safe here :)
[cut]
--alec
Attachments:
- attachment.html (text/html — 3.4 KB)