[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma-SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: lzma - SDK |Review Request: lzma-SDK |for lzma compression|for lzma compression --- Comment #35 from Jon Ciesla 2010-11-18 10:35:27 EST --- I just now understood the source of your confusion. It should be lzma-SDK, not lzma - SDK. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #34 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-18 10:31:33 EST --- And therein lies my confusion. We already have a package named "lzma"; we can't have another. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #33 from Jon Ciesla 2010-11-18 10:24:52 EST --- Not at all. It's intended to exist solely to allow building of upx without bundling this code. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #32 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-18 10:16:25 EST --- So this is intended to replace the existing lzma package? -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #31 from Jon Ciesla 2010-11-18 10:09:21 EST --- This is a different piece of code than the lzma package. There have been 30 comments, but no changes made, so the original src.rpm should be valid. MOst of the comments have been existential debate about the nature of the package, not the package itself. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #30 from Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-18 09:56:24 EST --- This ticket is somewhat confusing. First, there's already a package named "lzma" in the distribution, so either this is a duplicate or the ticket summary is incorrect. Second, there's been 29 comments since the original src.rpm link was posted; is that really what should be reviewed? -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #29 from Chen Lei 2010-09-04 23:14:11 EDT --- Firefox 4.0 also includes a copy of lzma sdk 9.07. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #28 from Jon Ciesla 2010-08-23 11:58:46 EDT --- If I'm re-reviewing, I don't see the point in resuscitating the other package, since the only thing that needed it, Frinika, is also orphaned. Also, in that case, I don't see the point in adapting this package to work with Frinika, unless someone plans to unorphan it. I don't. If someone wants to and wants me to create the appropriate -java subpackage, I can, but mine includes the java bits anyway. So, I think this is ready to be reviewed as-is. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #27 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-08-20 10:47:10 EDT --- No objection to merging the packages. Using the lzma-sdk name and continuing the review here seems like a good idea. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla 2010-08-20 08:59:47 EDT ---
I think what I've done here, and how I use if with UPX, works well. I put the
files in %{_datadir}, then have UPX BR it and point the build at it, and it
works.
Toshio, if you don't object, I'll go ahead with SevenZip then.
--
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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461
--- Comment #25 from Chen Lei 2010-08-16 22:13:35 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #24)
> From a security and other bug tracking point of view, static libraries and
> copying source files from the sdk seem to be the same to me unless the source
> is being modified. So question #1: Is the source being modified?
>
Thanks, so we just package source files to some place in %{_datadir}? Actually,
lzma 4.x is dead and won't have any bugfix.
--
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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #24 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-08-16 17:37:11 EDT --- >From a security and other bug tracking point of view, static libraries and copying source files from the sdk seem to be the same to me unless the source is being modified. So question #1: Is the source being modified? As for needing different versions, this is the same as having parallel stacks for any library. We'd really like for everything to be using the same version but it's not disallowed to have a backwards compatible stack as well. We need to be careful to get any bugfixes, esp. security related applied to the backwards compat stack. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #23 from Chen Lei 2010-08-14 22:54:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) > I think I'd rename SevenZip to lzma-sdk if you do that, though. It's also > likely a good idea to have it rereviewed since it's providing more features. > Having all of this built from a single package sounds like a great idea > though. Do you have a suggestion about how to package a sdk like lzma? It seems it can't be packaged as a static libraries, most developers only copy a few source files from sdk. Currently, at least p7zip and upx need lzma-sdk, however they use two incompatible versions(p7zip use lzma 9.x, upx use lzma 4.x). -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 Toshio Ernie Kuratomi changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a.bad...@gmail.com --- Comment #22 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi 2010-08-14 17:07:59 EDT --- I think I'd rename SevenZip to lzma-sdk if you do that, though. It's also likely a good idea to have it rereviewed since it's providing more features. Having all of this built from a single package sounds like a great idea though. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla 2010-08-12 16:04:45 EDT --- Interesting thing. Just saw put 2 and 2 together, and did some digging. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/SevenZip This is recently orphaned, and uses the same tarball I use in lzma-sdk. It only ships the Java bits. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla 2010-08-12 16:14:38 EDT --- Only Frinika uses it, also orphaned. I could take both, convert SevenZip to provide everything in a way that Frinika can use, and use it for UPX also, and drop this review. Thoughts? -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #19 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-29 09:42:14 EDT --- If you want an exception for UPX, go to FESCO. If you want to make sure lzma-sdk is being packaged properly, that's for FPC. Personally, I think packaging lzma-sdk so we can quit bundling is the way to go, not just for UPX. I'm not sure when the next FPC meeting is, but I'm not sure why we can't move forward on this as is. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #18 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-06-05 10:55:50 EDT --- Shouldn't the packaging committee discuss this first? -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #17 from Chen Lei 2010-06-05 10:45:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16) > I think claiming bundling it isn't a bug because the people wrote it > anticipated it being used that way, is not valid reasoning for Fedora. > The problems caused by bundling (which is why there is a rule), are still > going > to apply. > If p7zip is doing that, then it is a problem that should be addressed, not > copied. > To move forward on this, it might make sense to bring this up at a packagers > meeting and see what other people think about the proper way to package that > provides source to be included by other packages. If there is agreement on how > to do it, we can get this reviewed and included. And then later start cleaning > up other packages. > It might be useful to have the p7zip owner at that meeting to get their take > on > things. p7zip now requires lzma 9.1, but upx still requires lzma 4.6, so the problem is a bit complicated. Maybe writing a wiki documents all packages bundling lzma-sdk is more easier. Do you mind to open a ticket on fesco about bundling source file issue? Currenly, packaging guideline only forbid bundling system libs. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #16 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-06-05 10:27:16 EDT --- I think claiming bundling it isn't a bug because the people wrote it anticipated it being used that way, is not valid reasoning for Fedora. The problems caused by bundling (which is why there is a rule), are still going to apply. If p7zip is doing that, then it is a problem that should be addressed, not copied. To move forward on this, it might make sense to bring this up at a packagers meeting and see what other people think about the proper way to package that provides source to be included by other packages. If there is agreement on how to do it, we can get this reviewed and included. And then later start cleaning up other packages. It might be useful to have the p7zip owner at that meeting to get their take on things. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #15 from Chen Lei 2010-06-05 09:47:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > upx. > WRT 9.x, I agree, but I don't think waiting for that is the appropriate > solution. Bunding lzma-sdk is not a bug, because lzma-sdk is designed for bundling(MS Windows philosophy). p7zip also bundles the whole lzma-sdk in all linux distribution, no one complains about this. Packaging lzma-sdk seems not very easy, the tatball is not designed for packaging. See http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/lzma -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-03 09:30:38 EDT --- What's complicated about it? Are there specific issues not addressed by the package as is? I see no reason not to go ahead with it and stop bundling it in upx. WRT 9.x, I agree, but I don't think waiting for that is the appropriate solution. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #13 from Chen Lei 2010-06-03 06:13:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Possible, but since I don't know how to make that determination, and this > package might be of use to future packages, I see no reason not to do the > whole > shebang. I think packaging lzma-sdk is a bit complicated and may need some time to consider how to do is the best. Also, considring lzma 4.x is dead in upstream, it'll be must appropriate to package lzma 9.x. Once, upx support lzma 9.x, we can switch from bundled lzma to lzma source in the repo. I think bundling a dead upstream source is harmless. Since you already ship lzma in upx 3.04, I suggest you also ship lzma 4.65 in upx 3.05 as well temporary， this won't introduce new bugs. Considering upx 3.05 is a pure bugfix release, updating to the latest version will fix some bugs in upx 3.04 -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #12 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-02 14:47:54 EDT --- A. Sure. I can make a modified tarball. B. Why not the source in main and the headers in -devel? -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #11 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-06-02 14:30:11 EDT --- I took a quick look at the spec file and have a couple of questions. The .exe file is removed in %prep. Might that need to be removed sooner so that it doesn't get included in the srpm? (I'm worried that some nonredistributable library might be included in that build.) Would there be any point to having a way to get just the header files and documentation, but not the c source? (Maybe the main package provides the header files and documenation, and a -source subpackage provides the rest?) -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-02 13:49:11 EDT --- Possible, but since I don't know how to make that determination, and this package might be of use to future packages, I see no reason not to do the whole shebang. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #9 from Chen Lei 2010-06-02 08:14:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > So I just need this for upx then. You may just need those files in the lzma source. lzma465/C/LzFind.c lzma465/C/LzFind.h lzma465/C/LzmaDec.c lzma465/C/LzmaDec.h lzma465/C/LzmaEnc.c lzma465/C/LzmaEnc.h lzma465/C/Types.h -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-02 08:06:55 EDT --- So I just need this for upx then. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #7 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-06-01 11:38:38 EDT --- At one time the development version of squashfs-tools needed the LZMA SDK, but Phillip added an enhancement so that it could also use the xz library. I tested that and it works. So LZMA support in squashfs is not dependent on the LZMA SDK. (We just need support upstream in the kernel.) -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla 2010-06-01 11:13:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I don't known if it's necessrary, what's the opinion of FPC? Both Toshio and myself think it is, and we're on FPC. There's not been a formal ruling, but that wouldn't be the process anyway, it would have to be granted an exception to the bundled library clause by FESCO. > Bundling sources(normorlly BSD or MIT license) in GPL+ applications is quite > common and is permitted in fedora, it may be impossible for all packages to > split out their bundled sources. Not impossible, though possibly a gigantic pain. :) > e.g. > Many Input methods bundles IMdkit. Does that make it the right think to do? Re squashfs, I have no idea. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #5 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-05-28 00:30:28 EDT --- Once the devel version of squashfs started building against the xz lib I didn't worry about it. I am still not in a hurry, as despite what the kernel newbies page says, lzma squashfs file systems are not supported by the upstream kernel yet. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #4 from Chen Lei 2010-05-27 22:55:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > I think it is better to package it once and have things pull source from it > there, rather than bundle copies. Can squashfs build agaist lzma465? We now have one source package in repo - xorg-x11-server-source? -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #3 from Bruno Wolff III 2010-05-27 08:28:12 EDT --- I think it is better to package it once and have things pull source from it there, rather than bundle copies. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 --- Comment #2 from Chen Lei 2010-05-27 04:47:10 EDT --- gentoo seems to be allowing bundled lzma-sdk, as I known gentoo is quite strict in bundling system-libs. See http://www.gentoo-portage.com/app-arch/upx-ucl -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 Chen Lei changed: What|Removed |Added CC||supercyp...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Chen Lei 2010-05-26 21:08:06 EDT --- I don't known if it's necessrary, what's the opinion of FPC? Bundling sources(normorlly BSD or MIT license) in GPL+ applications is quite common and is permitted in fedora, it may be impossible for all packages to split out their bundled sources. e.g. Many Input methods bundles IMdkit. -- 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
[Bug 596461] Review Request: lzma - SDK for lzma compression
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=596461 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||564522 -- 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
