https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161
--- Comment #4 from Jeremy Newton <[email protected]> 2012-01-30 19:39:51 CET --- (In reply to comment #1) > Some sporadic remarks after a quick glance: > > One of the good things with svn is it's unique version nr. Wouldn't it might > make sense to include it in the release tag .(20120128svn73976) and in the > commented svn checkout: Good point, I will make this change; Fedora's version guidelines are a little vague, hence why I omitted the revision number. > #svn checkout -r 73976 https://pcsxr.svn.codeplex.com/svn/pcsxr > > Also, the source comment is sort of incomplete: checking out the svn repo > doesn't give you the zip archive... I was under the impression it was assumed it would then need to be zipped. If you can provide me an example used in a current RPMFusion or Fedora package, I will be fully willing to change it. I will clarify it does not give a zip file else wise or for the time being. > Am I wrong thinking you need "Requires(postun): gtk2" and "Requires(postrans): > gtk2"? I don't think it is needed, but I will check to make sure when I have a chance. (In reply to comment #2) > BTW,33 errors is a bit clumsy even if they could be ignored. And, in ~/bin > lives fsf-fix.sh, which never, ever will be shown to anyone. As a result, > there > is http://pastebin.com/Z9yCQUct, a patch which fixes everything besides > COPYING. Use it as you like, possibly forget or trash it. > > There are similar problems in the .po files, but rmplint doen't care about > them > and they thus not fixed. I've been strongly advised not to try and fix source code unless it causes it not to build. As well, I don't have interest to fix bugs, I will report this upstream and as soon as it's fixed, update the source to that revision. Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only license I see in the *.po files are "This file is distributed under the same license as the pcsxr package." (In reply to comment #3) > [while doing other things] > The license is not just GPLv2. Using 'licensecheck' I find no GPLv2, but > instead at least GPLv2+, GPLv3+, BSD, LGPLv2,1+, public domain, a possible > MIT-variant... My apologies, I meant to put GPLv2+, not GPLv2. I seem to have been a little too hasty when posted this spec. As well, I seem to have forgotten to run licensecheck to make sure the debian-upstream/copyright was correct > Many (most?) of these seems to be in the various macos/win32 plugins - these > can just be removed from the source I guess(?) But even so, there are more > than > GPLv2, possibly requiring a license breakdown IMHO. > Note the file debian-upstream/copyright which explicitly states the license to > be GPLv2+, not GPLv2. However, I guess at least the GPLv3+ files means a need > for a clever solution. Worst case scenario is that I ask upstream to fix this issue, or ask permission to distribute it all under GPLv3+ or all conflicting licenses under a version of LGPL. As well, I agree, I should have a look through the source and remove all unnecessary files in order to simplify things, including a custom spin of the source. -- 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.
