--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt(a)hotmail.com> 2012-01-30 19:39:51 CET
(In reply to comment #1)
Some sporadic remarks after a quick glance:
One of the good things with svn is it's unique version nr. Wouldn't it might
make sense to include it in the release tag .(20120128svn73976) and in the
commented svn checkout:
Good point, I will make this change; Fedora's version guidelines are a little
vague, hence why I omitted the revision number.
#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.
Am I wrong thinking you need "Requires(postun): gtk2" and
I don't think it is needed, but I will check to make sure when I have a chance.
(In reply to comment #2)
BTW,33 errors is a bit clumsy even if they could be ignored. And, in
lives fsf-fix.sh, which never, ever will be shown to anyone. As a result, there
, 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. 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.
Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only license I see
in the *.po files are "This file is distributed under the same license as the
(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
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
Many (most?) of these seems to be in the various macos/win32 plugins
can just be removed from the source I guess(?) But even so, there are more than
GPLv2, possibly requiring a license breakdown IMHO.
Note the file debian-upstream/copyright which explicitly states the
be GPLv2+, not GPLv2. However, I guess at least the GPLv3+ files means a need
for a clever solution.
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
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.