[Bug 2161] Review request: pcsxr - A plugin based PlayStation (PSX) emulator with high compatibility
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161
--- Comment #15 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com> 2012-02-08 21:26:04 CET
---
Appolgies for my late response, as I've been extremely busy.
(In reply to comment #13)
Why are you creating a *zip?
*.zips are quite unusual/obscure on Linux and are
inefficient in comparision to modern compressions:
# ls -s1 pcsxr*xz pcsxr-*zip
1196 pcsxr-73976.tar.xz
2220 pcsxr-73976.zip
Compare also the "Smallest Compressed Archive"
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source
Provided you are manually building the source-packages, feel encouraged to use
tar.xz.
Good point, I'll used xz instead.
(In reply to comment #14)
The commments on how to retrieve the source: since the License tag
(and related
conflicts) only applies to the binary RPM:s, I think you should move the code
cleanup to the %prep section. Something like
%prep
%setup -q
chmod 755 plugins/dfinput/util.*
rm -rf macosx win32 debian-upstream
This way manual source generation becomes simpler, and when upstream releases a
usable version which can be stated as a %source url it will "Just Work"(tm).
I can do that, but I'll have to note in the comments that the source will be in
zip instead of tar.xz. I think that rc040203(a)freenet.de has a point and I
should be using a better compression method, although if it would be more
consistent to use zip, I can do that too.
The patch/not patch discussion: simple misunderstanding. You send
report/patches upstream, and chooses to patch or not later. Agreed. We need the
upstream reference before this is over.
Okay, duly noted; I have requested it to be fixed, along with the list of files
and the changes that need to be made. I haven't made a patch though.
License breakdown: done in comments, which basically is fine.
However, you miss
some of the information in debian/copyright, notably the note on
psemu_plugin_defs. Personally, I think I would have created a new file like
LICENSES based on the debian stuff, but I guess either way is OK.
Oh sorry bout that, I seem to have omitted that by accident, I'll change it
right away. I don't see it as all that necessary for a LICENSES file and I'd
rather avoid adding anything that would be unnecessary. Although if a breakdown
in the SPEC isn't enough, I'll be sure to include such file. Given that the
plugin defs file no longer has a header, this doesn't seem like it will create
confusion.
Here's the updated files:
SPEC:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr.spec
SRPM:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/42480493/pcsxr-1.9.92-2.20120128svn73976.fc16.src...
--
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.