[Bug 1030] Review request: xbmc - Media center

[Jonathan Dieter]

On Wed, 2010-02-24 at 04:16 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> OK, an attempt of a short summary:
> 
> 
> * Technically: *-12 doesn't build for FC13 ;)
> 
> - An API change between rpmfusion's FC12 and FC13's ffmpeg breaks xbmc.
> - xbmc is victim of the DSO changes in FC13.
> - There is a subtile configure script bug somewhere causing it to 
> (silently) not to work for FC13.
> 
> I have dirty hacks addressing the 1st and 2nd issues pending, but am 
> still investigating the latter, yet. Could be one these "autoreconf is 
> harmful" cases, could also be a side-effect of the DSO-changes, could be 
> something else, ... I don't know yet.
> 
> 
> * Usability-wise:
> - Verify that python works sufficiently.
> There have been reports that xbmc's python scripts (python2.4) don't 
> work on Fedora (python2.6). I haven't see any such python breakdown yet, 
> so I don't know how to reproduce such breakdown.
> 
> - Decide about what to do with xbmc-standalone.
> IMO, it's dysfunctional.
> 
> - Decide about what to do with /usr/bin/xbmc's "core dump feature".
> To me, it's nothing but silly.
> 
> 
> * Perform a legal review.
> 
> - AFAICT, even if putting patent issues aside, xbmc is not [L]GPL'ed, 
> because it contains subpackages/libraries which are not 
> [L]GPL-compatible.  The original xbmc code certainly is "free", but I am 
> having strong doubts if all of the libraries they have bundled, are 
> (e.g. GoAHead, UnRar).
> 
> In Fedora, I would reject this package for "improper licensing" and/or 
> delegate it for legal review to FE-LEGAL. No idea, about what rpmfusion 
> wants to do about it.
> 
> - One detail: xbmc contains fonts, which suspiciously look like "bundled 
> msttcorefonts", but I haven't checked the details, yet.
> 
> 
> * Packaging-wise/FPG-compliance-wise: xbmc contains many "bundled" 
> libraries.
> 
> Alex, Rolf and I already removed some of them, but one would have to 
> check further of them can be replaced with "unbundled" versions and 
> which of them can't because upstream xbmc has hacked them up.

Is it all right if I put this summary into the review request (or if you
wanted to do it, that would be fine)?

FWIW, I'd be happy to continue on the original review request.

Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/attachments/20100224/5a46b25c/attachment.bin