Request of bundling exception

[Alec Leamas]

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 at fedoraproject.org <mailto:nobrakal at 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_questions
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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.

--alec


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/attachments/20130928/c7e7909c/attachment.html>