[Bug 1122] Review request: mame - Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1122





--- Comment #4 from Chen Lei <supercyper at 163.com>  2010-03-20 03:19:55 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> 1. I believe that the whole dance with splitting version between %version and
> %release is to ensure proper upgrade paths. I checked that it works, 0137u10 >
> 0137u1 < 0137. And putting the "u" into the %global will break the algorithm
> which applies the patches sequentially to the "u" releases. I know it was this
> way in SDLMAME, but RB released it as full zips. I never liked the versions
> like 0.137-0.1.0136u1 anyway.
> 
I think 0137 is not a valid a version for mame, upstream and most mame
deriatives use 0.137 as their versions. You should not use the numeric embeded
in the tarball instead. As a rule of thumb， the version of mame will never
reach 1.
I'd like to use 0.137-1 (0.137-2.u1, 0.137-3.u2,...0.138-1) as
%{version}-{release}, 0.137-1(0.137u1-1, 0.137u2) may also works fine.
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageNamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages

Moreover, 0.137u1 means the first update for 0.137, it can be considered as a
post-Release version. As I see, a lot of mame deriatives(mame32 mameplus)
distribute binaries of source updates version, there's no significant
difference of statibility between formal release(0.137) and source
updates(0.137u1,0.137u2) ones. Also, most people will happy using source
updates version(I use mame for more than ten years).


> 2. I can't see it ;)
> 
> 3. I could, but I can't do it for the main binary name, which would lead to
> inconsistent use of macros. I can add other architectures, sure.
> 
It's up to you:)

> 4. That's just one of the mirrors, I guess I could hardcode it as we do for
> sourceforge/nongnu/whatever.
> 
fedora's sourceURL guideline only specify the URL usage of sf.net. For other
case, using a mirror URL is permittd, also this URL is redirected from
http://mamedev.org/downloader.php?&file=mame0137s.exe.

> 5. Valid point. This is a leftover from testing a bug. I'll fix that.
> 
> 6. Obsoletes is OK, point 1 for Provides.
> 
Since you using 0135 and 0136 as version of sdlmame, so you should also
provides sdlmame = 0137-1 and sdlmame = 0138-1 to enable seamless upgrade.

> 7. I can kill the duplicate docs, no problem.
> 
> The ini file was put into the subdir so that cab builders could place config
> files in there without polluting /etc/.
Are there files other than %{name}.ini existd in /etc/mame? I'm not familiar
with linux version of mame.

> ui.bdc was generated from ui.bdf, which was shipped with sdlmame zip. Aaron
> said it might return someday, so I left it in.
Take care of licensing concern for ui.dbc(ui.dbf), some fonts may be illegal
for distribution in linux.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://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.