[Bug 2161] Review request: pcsxr - A plugin based PlayStation (PSX) emulator with high compatibility

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161

--- Comment #15 from Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt at 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 at 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.rpm

-- 
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.