Unknown Horizons

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

On 05/12/2012 07:15 PM, Nelson Marques wrote:
> 2012/5/12 Hans de Goede<hdegoede at redhat.com>:
<snip>

>> First of all, welcome to the Fedora Games mailinglist, and let me say that
>> we would love to have Unknown Horizons in Fedora.
>>
>> You mentioned a review request for UH that you closed, which I indeed
>> found:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430
>>
>> That review request points to this (recently fixed) FIFE bug:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=757352
>>
>> But AFAIK there is no new review request for UH, did I miss it?
>
> I'm going to re-open it (the one you mentioned before) once we have
> all the dependencies prepared, let go a bit further:
>
>   1. Tom (spot) has updated the dependencies required to update ENet
> (libenet), which provides the base layer for multiplayer. With ENet
> updated, I can continue with my review request for 'python-enet' which
> provides the python bindings used by UH for Multiplayer.
>
>   2. FIFE - The packaging of FIFE isn't really as I would like to be.
> I'm gathering soon with FIFE upstream to propose a packaging model
> that upstream can support and hopefully to implement it on the next
> release in Fedora (and openSUSE);
>

Ok.

>   3. Guichan - a dependency to build FIFE; This probably the only
> blocker as we need to submit a patch which was previously submited to
> upstream, but no action was taken on it and upstream from guichan
> seems to be masturbating themselves with UTF-8 implementation over the
> last 2 years but no real release was made. I'm going to propose this
> patch to Fedora guichan, which I don't mind also to co-maintain. If
> guichan doesn't fix this, we're (UH upstream) prepared to fork guichan
> so we don't have to strugle with vendors who can distribute UH.

As long as the patch does not change the API  (extending it is ok),
then that should not be a problem.

>> So the first thing to do would be to work together with Simon to create
>> a new review request based on the latest spec / srpm you've available for
>> UH.
>
> That's still on fedorapeople; though it needs some work as it's
> probably around 1 year old. Plus the patch (to use system wide fonts,
> LinLibertine and UMing) needs to be rebased against the current
> release. No worries, I got all of that covered already. The only
> blocker is Fedora guichan not supporting UTF8 (which is used by UH).
>

Hmm, UTF-8 support sounds like a potential big change the guichan, we
would really prefer to see support for something like that go in through
upstream, but if that is not working out I think we can come to
another solution.

>> In the FIFE bug I've read that the problem with UH is that some of
>> the game content files are of unclear origin, this is an absolute
>> blocker for getting UH into Fedora. So the first point of order
>> would be to make a list of all content (images, sounds, music,
>> level files, etc.), their origin and their license.
>
> Fixed over a year ago. That's old information, just to be clear, if
> such a problem existed UH wouldn't be distributed by Debian...

Good!

>
>>
>> Any file which is either of an unknown origin / has an unknown
>> license, or has a license Fedora does not accept will need to either
>> be relicensed (requires permission of the original author), or
>> replaced!
>
> That's not a problem and we can provide written evidence for the only
> file that can be dubious from the author, relicensing us (I don't
> remember what that file was, but it was a sound file if I'm not
> mistaken).

That is not necessary if the README (or some other docs) clearly
states that all resources are freely licensed and under which
license (or a list of licenses of different files have different
licenses), then we will trust upstream on that.

>
>> This license audit (and replacing any files with issues) is by
>> far the biggest job that needs doing. Once that is done the
>> rest of the work for getting UH into Fedora will be relatively
>> easy :)
>
> That stuff was already covered when that bug report was submitted ;)
>

Great!

> This sunday we're meeting up (UH upstream) to discuss a few things.
> One of our goal is that we can run exactly the same codebase and fixes
> on all distributions that distribute UH; By trying to coordinate
> packagers we hope to accomplish the following:
>
>    - use the same codebase and fixes in all distros and have them synched;
>    - provide package updates and version updates on the day of the
> release for all distros;
>    - Provide official support to the distributions which follow our
> packaging model (all the others I will suggest we use upstream static
> binary blobs through the loki installer, under the same model, with
> the codebase synched with distros);

Sounds great!

Question, how did Debian solve the guichan issue?

Regards,

Hans