https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2161
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas <[email protected]> 2012-01-30 20:35:56 CET --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > > > #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. If you look into http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control there's an example. I would just add something like # zip --exclude \*.svn -r %{source} pcsxr > > (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. By whom? Packaging people? Upstream? From packaging point of view I think patching is a perfectly sane thing to do, besides COPYING. But this is anyway a minor issue; it's just a little easier to handle rpmlint w/o 33 errors :) > 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. Then send them the patch, it might speed up things. > Also can you elaborate on the issues with the .po files? The only license I > see It's the AboutDlg key, containing the complete license, with wrong address (ZIP). > > (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 No apologies, were just trying to make a job together. Deal? [cut] > 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.
