[Bug 188974] Review Request: libGLw

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: libGLw


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188974





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-07-27 04:09 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> (In reply to comment #1)

> > * It would be better to have your real name on the bug report.
> > Not a big deal, it is in the spec anyway.
> 
> Irrelevant.

It is important to be able to identify the people behind fedora 
extras contributors.

> > * no need to conditionalize openmotif support, it should always 
> > be true in fedora extras
> 
> There's no need to conditionalize the support for many of the things
> which Fedora Core and Fedora Extras packages already conditionalize.
> Conditionalizing features is itself a feature, which can be useful
> to rebuilders, and for a variety of other reasons.
> 
> This is not a flaw in the package, and is IMHO orthagonal to inclusion
> of the package into Extras.

Not orthogonal, such conditionnal should be avoided unless they 
correspond with real needs. It's not a must or blocker, but simpler 
is better. For example if it is an old leftover that is not usefull 
anymore, it is usefull to point it out, if such comments are not done 
during the review they'll be never done.

> > * the non free file shouldn't be distributed.
> 
> I generally completely agree with that.  In this case the file is
> not open-source, but it both unused, and is legally redistributable,

>From the comment in the spec file I wrongly assumed that the file
was not redistributable. It is much better to distribute and remove it
as it is done in the spec in that case. (I didn't had a look at the file).


> Sounds reasonable for files which are not legally redistributable, such
> as mp3 decoder software, and other things which are legally encumbered.
> In the case of this file, it is redistributable as-is, and is unused, so
> moot.

Agreed.


> Adam more or less _is_ the upstream person who is splitting the tarball
> essentially.(In reply to comment #4)

I don't understand. I went to the mesa home site and indeed the 
tarball is not split in Mesa and libGLw?

> Definite overkill, with no real-world gain, and no real-world risk of
> not doing it.

Indeed, my comment was wrong. Maybe the comment in the spec file should be 
changed to

# WARNING: The following files are copyright "Mark J. Kilgard" under the GLUT
# license and are not free software (but redistributable), so we remove them.

> More importantly here I think, is which upstream do you think is more
> likely to fix bugs in libGLw and/or respond to developer
> inquiries and bug reports, etc?  I would wager the Mesa project would be
> much more responsive than would SGI, and definitely Mesa project is more
> likely to provide bugfixed tarballs in an open-project style manner.

Indeed, but not a tarball for libGLw, a tarball for Mesa, so it's dubious
to use the same source, Mesa-*.tar.bz2 for 2 distinct srpms. It is not 
explicitly forbidden but I consider it bad practice. Maybe another reviewer
could accept that practice, or as I said above we could also ask on the
fedora-extras-list for advice.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.