Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

Ah, thanks. Indeed. It's a bit old, but nice… :) Thanks for packaging it.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

Aha, so the discussion is about the "(not so) free" level packs already. Did 
not know that, indeed. If so, everything is all right. And in any case, you can 
still package it without these level packs. :)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

Oh, nice. In this case I'll take everything back…

I just got the impression, because of the prices list on the main website 
(https://askbot.com/plans/) and on askbot.com I did not find a link to the repo…
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Andrea Musuruane]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:11 PM, rugk  wrote:

> FYI, the game's name I could not remember was "Which way is up". See
> https://packages.debian.org/stretch/whichwayisup.
>

Nice game. I didn't know it.

I packaged it and it's available for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464778

Bye,

Andrea
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Artur Iwicki]

I think you're misunderstanding the discussion; the issue is not whether it's 
okay to package the game at all - as noted by Matthew and Zbigniew, being able 
to use copyrighted levels and such is okay; see: Fedora packs Doom ports.

The current blocker is that the level packs (CCLPs) use a licence which forbids 
modification; redistribution is allowed only when keeping everything as it was 
originally released. That's not FLOSS, but as Zbigniew mentioned, it fits the 
shareware/firmware packaging guidelines. Still, we want to play it safe to wait 
for input from the legal folks.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

> (Game engines which are open source and which work with redistributable but 
> non-free content are a different special case.)

Actually that's the case here, as explained in another post. It does *not 
require* the non-FLOSS binaries.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

FYI, the game's name I could not remember was "Which way is up". See 
https://packages.debian.org/stretch/whichwayisup.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

Actually, BTW, one basic assumption you do is wrong: The game can be played 
completely without the maybe-proprietary binary. There are FLOSS levels 
inside/bundled IIRC.

Playing the original levels is just an "extra feature" and if you don't use it, 
you don't use it.
Not allowing the software, because of this would be basically the same as not 
allowing any browser to be distributed, just because you can execute nonfree 
JavaScript, IMHO. Or not allowing LibreOffice as copyrighted documents may be 
opened with it.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 07:47:48PM +0200, Christian Dersch wrote:
> On 06/17/2017 07:41 PM, Christian Dersch wrote:
> > On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> >>>
>  Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> > I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The 
> > only
> > issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
> > only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This
> > package [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are 
> > left
> > intact and unmodified."
> >
> > Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for
> > the package say?
>  I'd apply the 'firmware guidelines' [1] here:
> 
>   > The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be
>  set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
> >>> That licensing exception applies *only* to firmware, and I'm pretty sure 
> >>> the 
> >>> content in question here cannot be argued to be firmware (please correct 
> >>> me 
> >>> if I'm wrong).
> >> The guidelines say (in the section about shareware, but I think that's 
> >> just poor
> >> editing, because there's nothing specific to shareware in the reasoning):
> >>
> >> However, it is worth noting that some non-executable content
> >> exists that is required to make Open Source applications
> >> functional. An example of this would be open sourced game engines,
> >> such as Doom, Heretic, and Descent. These game engines come with
> >> freely distributable [...] gamedata files.
> >>
> >> In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in
> >> Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary
> >> firmware.
> >>
> >> ... and the requirements for firmware are: non-executable, not
> >> libraries, standalone, "available under an acceptable firmware
> >> license, which is included with the files in the packaging" and
> >> "necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in
> >> Fedora [...] where no other reliable and supported mechanisms
> >> exist.". I think the game data satisfies those requirements.
> >>
> > I agree with Björn and Rex here and think it is now allowed. We even had
> > such cases in the past where packages (also game with nonfree data)  had
> > to be removed. If in doubt: Better ask Fedora Legal about this, they can
> > give a statement on this. Either ask on their mailing list or add the
> > review request bug here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-Legal
> >
> Only agree with Rex of course, misread indentation here…
> 
> Legal wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Main

OK, I tagged https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412 as blocking 
FE-Legal.
Let's see what they say.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Christian Dersch]

On 06/17/2017 07:41 PM, Christian Dersch wrote:
> On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
>>>
 Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
> only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This
> package [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are left
> intact and unmodified."
>
> Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for
> the package say?
 I'd apply the 'firmware guidelines' [1] here:

  > The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be
 set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
>>> That licensing exception applies *only* to firmware, and I'm pretty sure 
>>> the 
>>> content in question here cannot be argued to be firmware (please correct me 
>>> if I'm wrong).
>> The guidelines say (in the section about shareware, but I think that's just 
>> poor
>> editing, because there's nothing specific to shareware in the reasoning):
>>
>> However, it is worth noting that some non-executable content
>> exists that is required to make Open Source applications
>> functional. An example of this would be open sourced game engines,
>> such as Doom, Heretic, and Descent. These game engines come with
>> freely distributable [...] gamedata files.
>>
>> In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in
>> Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary
>> firmware.
>>
>> ... and the requirements for firmware are: non-executable, not
>> libraries, standalone, "available under an acceptable firmware
>> license, which is included with the files in the packaging" and
>> "necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in
>> Fedora [...] where no other reliable and supported mechanisms
>> exist.". I think the game data satisfies those requirements.
>>
> I agree with Björn and Rex here and think it is now allowed. We even had
> such cases in the past where packages (also game with nonfree data)  had
> to be removed. If in doubt: Better ask Fedora Legal about this, they can
> give a statement on this. Either ask on their mailing list or add the
> review request bug here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-Legal
>
Only agree with Rex of course, misread indentation here…

Legal wiki page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Main

Greetings,
Christian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Christian Dersch]

On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
>>
>>> Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
 I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
 issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
 only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This
 package [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are left
 intact and unmodified."

 Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for
 the package say?
>>> I'd apply the 'firmware guidelines' [1] here:
>>>
>>>  > The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be
>>> set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
>> That licensing exception applies *only* to firmware, and I'm pretty sure the 
>> content in question here cannot be argued to be firmware (please correct me 
>> if I'm wrong).
> The guidelines say (in the section about shareware, but I think that's just 
> poor
> editing, because there's nothing specific to shareware in the reasoning):
>
> However, it is worth noting that some non-executable content
> exists that is required to make Open Source applications
> functional. An example of this would be open sourced game engines,
> such as Doom, Heretic, and Descent. These game engines come with
> freely distributable [...] gamedata files.
>
> In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in
> Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary
> firmware.
>
> ... and the requirements for firmware are: non-executable, not
> libraries, standalone, "available under an acceptable firmware
> license, which is included with the files in the packaging" and
> "necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in
> Fedora [...] where no other reliable and supported mechanisms
> exist.". I think the game data satisfies those requirements.
>
I agree with Björn and Rex here and think it is now allowed. We even had
such cases in the past where packages (also game with nonfree data)  had
to be removed. If in doubt: Better ask Fedora Legal about this, they can
give a statement on this. Either ask on their mailing list or add the
review request bug here https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=FE-Legal

Greetings,
Christian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> 
> > Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> >> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
> >> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
> >> only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This
> >> package [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are left
> >> intact and unmodified."
> >>
> >> Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for
> >> the package say?
> > 
> > I'd apply the 'firmware guidelines' [1] here:
> > 
> >  > The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be
> > set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"
> 
> That licensing exception applies *only* to firmware, and I'm pretty sure the 
> content in question here cannot be argued to be firmware (please correct me 
> if I'm wrong).

The guidelines say (in the section about shareware, but I think that's just poor
editing, because there's nothing specific to shareware in the reasoning):

However, it is worth noting that some non-executable content
exists that is required to make Open Source applications
functional. An example of this would be open sourced game engines,
such as Doom, Heretic, and Descent. These game engines come with
freely distributable [...] gamedata files.

In this case, the gamedata files can be packaged and included in
Fedora, as long as the files meet the requirements for binary
firmware.

... and the requirements for firmware are: non-executable, not
libraries, standalone, "available under an acceptable firmware
license, which is included with the files in the packaging" and
"necessary for the functionality of open source code being included in
Fedora [...] where no other reliable and supported mechanisms
exist.". I think the game data satisfies those requirements.

It even says explicitly that "prohibitions on modification" are OK.

Zbyszek
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Rex Dieter]

Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:

> Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
>> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
>> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
>> only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This
>> package [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are left
>> intact and unmodified."
>>
>> Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for
>> the package say?
> 
> I'd apply the 'firmware guidelines' [1] here:
> 
>  > The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be
> set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"

That licensing exception applies *only* to firmware, and I'm pretty sure the 
content in question here cannot be argued to be firmware (please correct me 
if I'm wrong).

-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Rex Dieter]

Artur Iwicki wrote:

> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only
> copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package
> [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its contents are left intact
> and unmodified."
> 
> Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for
> the package say? ___

I'm pretty sure that non-modification (restriction) clause makes it non-
free, and not ok to be in fedora.

-- Rex
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Artur Iwicki]

To anyone interested: I've finished packaging the game and would be grateful 
for a review. I can do a review swap in exchange.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Björn 'besser82' Esser]

Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:

I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue I have is 
that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only copyright info is a line at 
the end of the readme, stating: "This package [...] may be distributed freely, as 
long as its contents are left intact and unmodified."

Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for the 
package say?


I'd apply the 'firmware guidelines' [1] here:

> The License tag for any firmware that disallows modification must be 
set to: "Redistributable, no modification permitted"



[1] 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Artur Iwicki]

I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue 
I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only copyright 
info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package [...] may be 
distributed freely, as long as its contents are left intact and unmodified." 

Is that enough for Fedora, and if yes - what should the License tag for the 
package say?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:18:13PM -,  rugk wrote:
> >  wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be.
> 
> It worked in Debian. ;)
> Basically they did not package the original game files. I think they
> are even not included in the upstream project. They just state: "Do
> you have a file of the original game?" If yes, you can copy it
> somewhere and the game will use it. That's all fine from a legal
> point of view.

From a *Fedora* point of view, the longstanding policy is that we don't
package software which *requires* non-redistributable bits:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits
(Game engines which are open source and which work with redistributable
but non-free content are a different special case.)

If this game works with a redistributable content set and is free of
other problems, that's a different story.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:28 PM, rugk  wrote:
> Personally, I'd like such a system very much. It would make it possible for 
> regular users to participate…
> And such participation can be the first step to becoming deeper involved into 
> the project and becoming a packager, e.g.
>
> I don't know phpback, but uservoice is a popular software. It is proprietary 
> AFAIk, but you do not seem to care about that much anyway, as Ask Fedora 
> (which is functionally – although it cannot reach Stackexchange – really 
> great, BTW) is also not FLOSS.
>

What are you talking about? AskBot is FLOSS, and even on GitHub:
https://github.com/ASKBOT/askbot-devel



-- 
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

Personally, I'd like such a system very much. It would make it possible for 
regular users to participate…
And such participation can be the first step to becoming deeper involved into 
the project and becoming a packager, e.g.

I don't know phpback, but uservoice is a popular software. It is proprietary 
AFAIk, but you do not seem to care about that much anyway, as Ask Fedora (which 
is functionally – although it cannot reach Stackexchange – really great, BTW) 
is also not FLOSS.

BTW: If you want you can alos just add my packages proposed here to the wiki 
list for now.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[rugk]

> I searched for tworld, is that the "Tile World" game recreating "Chip's 
> Challenge"?

Yes.

>  wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be.

It worked in Debian. ;)
Basically they did not package the original game files. I think they are even 
not included in the upstream project. They just state: "Do you have a file of 
the original game?" If yes, you can copy it somewhere and the game will use it. 
That's all fine from a legal point of view.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:49 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > It'd be *nice* if there would be
> > > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
> > > presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over.
> > 
> > It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list that is perpetually ignored is
> > worse than no list at all. Without some kind of affirmative effort to
> > pop items off the stack, these sorts of things end up becoming a
> > frustrating graveyard of unfulfilled dreams.
> 
> Yeah, this is one of the reasons wiki is the wrong tech. If someone
> _wanted_ to set up something like this to be actually functional, maybe
> something like http://www.phpback.org/ would be better (with user
> voting). I'm not suggesting that we set this up as official
> infrastructure, but if someone in the community wants to work on it, I
> think it *could* be useful.

I dunno, I think it'd make the effect worse. Imagine someone puts in
all the effort to build a nice app with user voting, and some package
gets added to it and gets 500 votes, and still doesn't get packaged
because no-one who actually does packaging is interested in it and
that's still how things actually *get packaged*; doesn't that feel
worse to everyone than an obscure wiki page? Maintainers all feel
vaguely bad that there's this really popular thing that someone
'should' package but no-one actually wants to. Users feel bad because
"why aren't you packaging this incredibly popular thing?!"

I feel like it'd only be a good idea to do if someone were to actually
commit to packaging at least the 'X most popular things on the list
every three months' or something, only then you start getting into
people gaming the voting system since it means something...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Matthew Miller]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > It'd be *nice* if there would be
> > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
> > presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over.
> It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list that is perpetually ignored is
> worse than no list at all. Without some kind of affirmative effort to
> pop items off the stack, these sorts of things end up becoming a
> frustrating graveyard of unfulfilled dreams.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons wiki is the wrong tech. If someone
_wanted_ to set up something like this to be actually functional, maybe
something like http://www.phpback.org/ would be better (with user
voting). I'm not suggesting that we set this up as official
infrastructure, but if someone in the community wants to work on it, I
think it *could* be useful.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Ben Cotton]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Matthew Miller
 wrote:
> It'd be *nice* if there would be
> a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
> presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over.

It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list that is perpetually ignored is
worse than no list at all. Without some kind of affirmative effort to
pop items off the stack, these sorts of things end up becoming a
frustrating graveyard of unfulfilled dreams.


-- 
Ben Cotton
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:55:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> There's a wiki page for this, but frankly I'd suggest it's not a high
> priority because we just don't have a pool of people hanging around
> looking for stuff to package; the existing page is huge and contains
> things that have been on it for years. I'd say that the chance of
> something being packaged just because you add it to a list of 'stuff
> people want packaged' - however we maintain that list - is pretty close
> to zero.

We do occasionally get "hey I'd like to join Fedora and package stuff
up; what should I package?" requests. It'd be *nice* if there would be
a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over.
Wiki definitely isn't the right tech for it though.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Petr Pisar]

On 2017-06-14, Adam Williamson  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 01:22 +0200, rugk wrote:
>> Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am 
>> partially missing after switching from Debian.
>
> There's a wiki page for this

The wiki cannnot be edited by people without any FAS group. I.e. normal
Fedora users.

-- Petr
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Artur Iwicki]

I have a bit of personal interest in Tox, so I took a look. qTox cannot be 
included in the official repo because of dependency on ffmpeg. The dependency 
list for uTox looks like it could be worked with (the filter_audio lib looks 
the worst to me).

I searched for tworld, is that the "Tile World" game recreating "Chip's 
Challenge"? While it has fan-made level packs, it can also be used with the 
original game's data - I wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Package suggestions

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 01:22 +0200, rugk wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been looking into how to suggest packages for inclusion in Fedora 
> for some time. See 
> https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-packages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/.
> 
> Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am 
> partially missing after switching from Debian.

There's a wiki page for this, but frankly I'd suggest it's not a high
priority because we just don't have a pool of people hanging around
looking for stuff to package; the existing page is huge and contains
things that have been on it for years. I'd say that the chance of
something being packaged just because you add it to a list of 'stuff
people want packaged' - however we maintain that list - is pretty close
to zero.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Package suggestions

[rugk]

Hi,
I've been looking into how to suggest packages for inclusion in Fedora 
for some time. See 
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-packages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/.


Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am 
partially missing after switching from Debian.


 * one/some tox clients (see https://tox.chat)
 * zcash
 * MAT (metadata anonymisation toolkit, e.g. famous for inclusion in 
Tails)

 * qtqr (small good QR code generation toolkit)

Games:
 * tworld
 * and a 2d game included in the Debian repos, where you would walk 
through a technical landscape avoiding being shot by seemingly robots 
and you could get on elements that turn the world. (I think that's how 
the game was named too, something like "Where is top?" or so…)


In any case already thanks @aeperezt and @davidva for your help, BTW.

Best regards,
rugk
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org