Request of bundling exception

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 09/28/2013 03:56 PM, Alec Leamas wrote:
> 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.

Shiny clearly falls under the copylib bundling exception, so I see no problem with
bundling it.

As for oics given the heavy modifications done to it I'm fine with granting a
bundling exception there too.

Regards,

Hans