[TiLP-devel] Re: [tiemu-devel] Re: [TiLP-users] Fedora Core 3 RPMs of TiLP and TiEmu (with GDB) now available

[Kevin K. <kev...@ch...>]

> I would like to recommend that you join Fedora Extras and submit your
> packages there.
>
> Fedora Extras provides a QA process to help ensure that what the user
> installs is packaged professionally, actually works, and is made
> available on as many platforms as possible.

I'm very well aware of Fedora Extras, I'm using their packages since back
when it was still at fedora.us (FC1 time - I upgraded directly from RHL 7.3
to FC1, so I haven't used the fedora.us packages for RHL 8 and 9 prior to
the merger with Red Hat), and I even follow what's happening on their lists.
One annoyance with the new Extras at Red Hat is bureaucracy: I don't like
copyright assignment forms at all (the FSF one annoys me as well) and they
are of dubious legality here in Austria (you can't assign your copyrights
here, that's a US law concept). Another is that, well, I think they'll
prefer release RPMs to the SVN snapshots I'm currently building (especially
the TiEmu ones which are from a development branch). The legal issues with
TiEmu you're mentioning are also a good point, though you can now run TiEmu
without any non-GPL stuff thanks to PedroM (you can even run a few games
under that ROM, it's not just a toy ROM).

> I actually would appreciate that very much - I sat down today to rebuild
> my rpm's for TiLP in rawhide (using the stable release versions).
>
> I do not like to add lots of little repos, that's how problems happen.

It's true that repository mixing is a big source of problems, but rest
assured that my packages are compatible with the current Fedora Extras (I'm
running many packages from there myself). And if TiLP etc. packages really
do get into Extras, then I think I won't bother building them anymore.

> The three libraries build just fine, but TiLP does not (with gcc4 or
> gcc32) - hence my reading of the list looking to see if a patch has been
> submitted yet. Does build fine in fc3 though.

Well, actually the tarball currently on ticalc.org doesn't seem to build at
all. One guy I talked to on IRC yesterday (FpgForce) didn't manage to build
it on Debian either (some make target missing in the plugins folder). I sent
him the latest SVN HEAD snapshot I've used for my RPM, and it did build.

> Please do not use --disable-nls when building rpm's for public use. They
> are important to some people. Use the %find_lang macro to specify the
> locale files - those who don't want them can specify to rpm to only
> install the locale files they need.

Well, have you ever looked at how the NLS for development tools like GCC
actually looks like? It's horribly badly translated, many times someone
translated something literally without understanding anything about GCC or
compilers in general. I don't think it is any better for GDB. As for
Romain's own code, I don't think the translations are anywhere near up to
date.

My main project, TIGCC, actually doesn't support NLS at all: our tools have
no translation facility, and we remove the translation files from GCC and
Binutils because as I said the translations are of horrible quality, they
only waste space and make bug reports harder for us to understand (and
errors harder to understand for our users, too, because of the bad
translations).

But thanks for the example NLS-enabled specfile.

        Kevin Kofler