Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708765 --- Comment #31 from Mario Sanchez Prada <msanc...@igalia.com> 2011-06-02 17:12:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #30) > [...] > > If the FPC doesn't grant an exception, this is probably the only > > alternative. > > If the Fedora Packaging Comitee granted that exception that would be awesome. > As I said, I'm open to (temporarily at least) removing the git repository of > flicksoup in gitorious, and I'm also open, if bundling a static library in > frogr is a problem (as I understand from your words), to merge even more those > files in src/fliksoup with frogr, so they would be compiled just through the > same set of files in the SOURCES variable, in src/Makefile.am. > > That way, there wouldn't be anymore a libflicksoup.a frogr would link against, > just the source files as they are, avoiding the problems with Fedora > packaging, > if I got it right. I did this change upstream in frogr, you can check it out here: http://git.gnome.org/browse/frogr/commit/?id=29baa0f75d8247c8769375c1a1e616c6cc81ddb5 Now there's no more a libflicksoup.la file, as all the fsp-*.[ch] files are compiled as part of the frogr binary. Can somebody point out if in this situation frogr would be more suitable to be packaged for Fedora? Also still not removed the flicksoup repo from gitorious, waiting for some feedback from this thread on the topic, although I'm now more in the mood of removing it than of keeping it :-) > [...] > But all this, when it comes to releasing frogr 0.5 in fedora, would mean that > such an exception should be granted. Or well... if such an exception was not > granted we could also release frogr 0.5.1 with those modifications in place, > in > case you agree is a good idea As I mentioned here, if releasing frogr 0.5.1 with these latest modifications in place help in any way to Fedora packagers, I'll gladly do it so. Just ask. > If this idea (remove the libflicksoup.a from frogr) was feasible, I'd say is > the best way to go. And if keeping the flicksoup files inside of frogr with > the > LGPLv3 license was not a problem for Fedora, then it would be perfect. At the moment I kept the files in src/flicksoup/ as LGPLv3. Hope there's no issue with that. Last but not least, I've changed the wording about flicksoup inside the files that were mentioning it inside frogr, to stop telling that is a "bundled library", which is not yet. Hope these changes help moving towards our goal :-) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
