[Bug 2161] Review request: pcsxr - A plugin based PlayStation (PSX) emulator with high compatibility
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com> 2012-01-30 20:35:56 CET ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #1)
> #svn checkout -r 73976 https://pcsxr.svn.codeplex.com/svn/pcsxr
>
> Also, the source comment is sort of incomplete: checking out the svn repo
> doesn't give you the zip archive...
I was under the impression it was assumed it would then need to be zipped. If
you can provide me an example used in a current RPMFusion or Fedora package, I
will be fully willing to change it. I will clarify it does not give a zip file
else wise or for the time being.
If you look into
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
there's an example. I would just add something like
# zip --exclude \*.svn -r %{source} pcsxr
(In reply to comment #2)
> BTW,33 errors is a bit clumsy even if they could be ignored. And, in ~/bin
> lives fsf-fix.sh, which never, ever will be shown to anyone. As a result, there
> is http://pastebin.com/Z9yCQUct, a patch which fixes everything besides
> COPYING. Use it as you like, possibly forget or trash it.
>
> There are similar problems in the .po files, but rmplint doen't care about them
> and they thus not fixed.
I've been strongly advised not to try and fix source code unless it causes it
not to build.
By whom? Packaging people? Upstream? From packaging point of view I
think
patching is a perfectly sane thing to do, besides COPYING. But this is anyway
a minor issue; it's just a little easier to handle rpmlint w/o 33 errors :)
As well, I don't have interest to fix bugs, I will report this
upstream and as soon as it's fixed, update the source to that revision.
Then
send them the patch, it might speed up things.
Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only
license I see
It's the AboutDlg key, containing the complete license, with wrong
address
(ZIP).
(In reply to comment #3)
> [while doing other things]
> The license is not just GPLv2. Using 'licensecheck' I find no GPLv2, but
> instead at least GPLv2+, GPLv3+, BSD, LGPLv2,1+, public domain, a possible
> MIT-variant...
My apologies, I meant to put GPLv2+, not GPLv2. I seem to have been a little
too hasty when posted this spec. As well, I seem to have forgotten to run
licensecheck to make sure the debian-upstream/copyright was correct
No apologies, were just trying to make a job together. Deal?
[cut]
Worst case scenario is that I ask upstream to fix this issue, or ask
permission
to distribute it all under GPLv3+ or all conflicting licenses under a version
of LGPL. As well, I agree, I should have a look through the source and remove
all unnecessary files in order to simplify things, including a custom spin of
the source.
--
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.