Speaking about prototype and scriptaculous, I am sure that they are bundled also in Rails and if there are some Rails applications packaged, they will be included also in them. However I am not sure if they should be packaged separately or just copylibs. Vit Dne 31.8.2011 06:35, Adam Williamson napsal(a): > Hey, all. So, I'm looking at packaging tt-rss - an RSS reader > implemented as a PHP webapp - for Fedora, since I run it on my own > server. It became rapidly clear that it's a landmine of bundled PHP > libraries and snippets and uncertain licensing. I'm unsure which of the > things it bundles would be likely to qualify as copylibs, and also a few > of the things it bundles seem to raise wider questions, so I thought I'd > post my 'deps list' here and raise some of the issues: > > * dojo/dijit - F/OSS, packaged > > * simplepie - F/OSS, packaged > > * CheckBoxTree.js - requires formal license, unpackaged - > http://www.thejekels.com/blog/dojo/dijit-tree-with-multi-state-checkboxes/comment-page-1/#comment-46 . not entirely sure whether this would count as a copylib. > > * htmlpurifier - F/OSS, unpackaged but its PEAR channel is packaged as > php-channel-htmlpurifier, review at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=542045 > > * iui - F/OSS, unpackaged - https://code.google.com/p/iui/ > > * MiniTemplator - F/OSS, unpackaged - > http://www.source-code.biz/MiniTemplator/ > > * phpmailer - F/OSS, packaged > > * position.js - comprises http://codesnippets.joyent.com/posts/show/835 > and http://codesnippets.joyent.com/posts/show/836 - unlicensed, author > contacted - these are probably copylibs? > > * prototypejs - F/OSS, unpackaged, already embedded in many other > packages - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523277 > > * php-pubsubhubbub - F/OSS, unpackaged: > https://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub/ (was > https://code.google.com/p/pubsubhubbub-php/ , merged into upstream) > > * scriptaculous - F/OSS, mostly unpackaged, but part of > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Scriptaculous , which is a python wrapper > with old versions of scriptaculous and prototype embedded in it > > * sphinxapi.php - F/OSS, packaged (sphinx-php) > > * tmhoauth - F/OSS, unpackaged - > https://github.com/themattharris/tmhOAuth > > * xsl_mop-up.js - public domain, unpackaged - > http://www.fadshop.net/xsl_mop-up.js but link is dead, ref > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168 . probably a copylib > > So the major issues that come up: prototypejs seems to be embedded into > an awful lot of Fedora packages, if you look at > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523277 as a reference. > mediatomb has a copy, wordpress has a copy, python-webhelpers has a copy > (actually it seems it's not there any more), python-Scriptaculous has a > copy, asterisk has a copy. Isn't this a major issue? Should I file a bug > for this and try to split prototypejs out into a single package which > all those other packages could depend on, or am I missing something? Has > it been declared a copylib? wordpress review request does not appear to > have dealt with it, stating "* no shared libraries are present: okay" - > I don't know if it was missed, or wasn't present in wordpress at the > time of review. mediatomb review similarly didn't catch it. > > python-Scriptaculous seems to be a python (TurboGears) wrapper for > scriptaculous, and it has scriptaculous and prototypejs embedded in it. > the review request doesn't seem to have dealt with this at all, it > simply states "+ no headers or static libraries.", which seems to be, > well, a bit of a porky. =) > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508510 . should I raise this > as a bug, or again, am I missing something? > > If anyone clueful has thoughts on the prototypejs and > python-scriptaculous issues, or on which of the tt-rss deps are likely > copylibs and don't need to be packaged separately, that'd be really > helpful. thanks! -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
