wrote:

Hi all, I'm a new packager in the RpmFusion Project, and in the Fedora Project in general. I submitted a review request of the openmw package [1] [2]. And I've a problem. Openmw include 2 bundled package. So, I apply to make two exceptions. This is the reason: For shiny: Per upstream it is designed to be copied in and is not a stand alone library. https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt For oics: Modified from upstream source. You can also read our discussion in the openmw forum [3]. Links: [1]: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 [2]: https://openmw.org/en/ [3]: http://forum.openmw.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1671&start=30 Please, if you have any question, ask me :)

On 09/27/2013 10:02 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alexandre Moine > <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org <mailto:nobrakal@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm a new packager in the RpmFusion Project, and in the Fedora > Project > in general. > I submitted a review request of the openmw package [1] [2]. And > I've a > problem. Openmw include 2 bundled package. So, I apply to make two > exceptions. This is the reason: > > For shiny: > Per upstream it is designed to be copied in and is not a stand alone > library. > https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt > > For oics: > Modified from upstream source. > > You can also read our discussion in the openmw forum [3]. > > Links: > [1]: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 > [2]: https://openmw.org/en/ > [3]: http://forum.openmw.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1671&start=30 > > Please, if you have any question, ask me :) > > > Of course you get my vote, but I'm biased. :) > > Richard To be a little formal, you are required to provide answers to the standard questions in [1] before there is a decision. If you try to answer those, things will be much easier to sort out.

--alec PS Yes, its a pain... been there, done that. ;) DS [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_qu...

On 09/28/2013 12:48 PM, Alexandre Moine wrote: > Le 27/09/2013 22:16, Alec Leamas a écrit : >> On 09/27/2013 10:02 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Alexandre Moine <nobrakal(a)fedoraproject.org <mailto:nobrakal@fedoraproject.org>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm a new packager in the RpmFusion Project, and in the Fedora Project >>> in general. >>> I submitted a review request of the openmw package [1] [2]. And I've a >>> problem. Openmw include 2 bundled package. So, I apply to make two >>> exceptions. This is the reason: >>> >>> For shiny: >>> Per upstream it is designed to be copied in and is not a stand alone >>> library. >>> https://github.com/scrawl/shiny/blob/master/CMakeLists.txt >>> >>> For oics: >>> Modified from upstream source. >>> >>> You can also read our discussion in the openmw forum [3]. >>> >>> Links: >>> [1]: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2921 >>> [2]: https://openmw.org/en/ >>> [3]: http://forum.openmw.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1671&start=30 >>> >>> Please, if you have any question, ask me :) >>> >>> >>> Of course you get my vote, but I'm biased. :) >>> >>> Richard >> >> To be a little formal, you are required to provide answers to the standard questions in [1] before there is a decision. If you try to answer those, things will be much easier to sort out. > > Oh sorry, I forgot that: > Has the library behaviour been modified? No for shiny, it is developped by a member of the openmw project. Yes for Oics. It is modified to work with sdl. > Why haven't the changes been pushed to the upstream library? I don't know... But the team has been heavy modified the code. > Could we make the forked version the canonical version within Fedora? No, oics is designed to work with openmw. For shiny, it can't to work alone > Are the changes useful to consumers other than the bundling application? No, for the same. Oics is designed for openmw. For shiny, I don't know, but I think not. It's really designed for openmw. > What is the attitude of upstream towards bundling? The writer of shiny is very sympatic (@scrawl). For the writer of OICS, i don't know. > Overview of the security ramifications of bundling.The sources is sure (it's remake by developpers of openmw, not dangerous) > Does the maintainer of the Fedora package of the library being bundled have any comments about this? The package does not exist. > Is there a plan for unbundling the library at a later time? For now, no. It's difficult to do this, and the openmw have other fish to fry! But, with the time, maybe. > Please include any relevant documentation: > > shiny project: https://github.com/scrawl/shiny > OICS: http://sourceforge.net/projects/oics/ > > The discussion about this on the openmw wiki: http://forum.openmw.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1671&start=30 > > Thank you very much Richard ;) > > Alexandre > >> >> --alec >> >> PS Yes, its a pain... been there, done that. ;) DS >> >> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Standard_qu... >> > > > -- > Alexandre, Fedora User and Ambassador Hm, lets try to split this discussion into two: one for shiny and one for OICS. For shiny: is there a problem to package this separately? The code is unmodified, so you could just unbundle a new shiny package, and make sure it works with openmw? There is something I don't really get here. It might be that the shiny package just is some source code and not actually linked against. But that does preclude making a separate package IMHO. However, we need more input on this - I',m on thin ice here.

On 09/28/2013 03:56 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: > > It might be that the shiny package just is some source code and not > actually linked against. Would you mind to explain what you mean by this? It doesn't parse to anything I understand. Ralf

I figured I'd give it a few days and haven't seen any real objections. Is it safe to assume he's good to go?

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com <mailto:j.w.r.degoede@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi, On 10/03/2013 07:48 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: I figured I'd give it a few days and haven't seen any real objections. Is it safe to assume he's good to go? I believe so. Thanks... The game looks awesome, it will be nice when save/load is implemented :) Too bad you have to buy it to get the content. Richard