recoll review request help : using modified versions of libraries for build

[Ankur Sinha]

On Sun, 2010-07-11 at 20:08 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:31:01 +0530
> Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to confirm if I can approve recoll[1] which uses some build
> > deps that it ships in the tar itself. Namely, "unac" and "binc imap".
> > 
> > 
> > > > 1. I see a unac directory with a "stripped down version of unac".
> > > > You need
> > > to
> > >  > package unac separately and add it as a build requires IMO. 
> > > 
> > > Parts of unac are significantly modified for Recoll use. The
> > > comment is misleading, this is not just a "stripped down version of
> > > unac". I fixed the README (for the next version). Recoll could not
> > > use the standard package.
> > > 
> > > You can find the new README.recoll file at the following link. I
> > > hope this clarifies things:
> > > http://bitbucket.org/medoc/recoll/src/tip/unac/
> > ...
> > ....
> > ...
> > > There is also a partial and modified copy of binc imap. As
> > > far as I know this is not packaged on Fedora and not available as a
> > > library, so including the code is the only way to reuse it.   
> > > 
> > 
> > AFAIK, these need to be packaged separately and then used as BRs.
> > However, the modifications made for use in the package make it a
> > little complex. 
> > 
> > Any help would be appreciated. 
> 
> Have you looked over: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
> 
> I think it would be best to talk to upstream of this project and
> see if there is any chance of them upstreaming any of their patches for
> these projects. If not, then getting to admit that they are forking
> them and only using them internally would at least be good to know. 
> 
> kevin

hello, 

Yes. I did look at that page and ask the reporter and upstream to look
at it too. 

The packages that they've used have significantly been changed to fit
the needs of recoll, so I'm not sure sending patches to upstream makes
sense. They've only used parts of the packages too, not the entire
thing. 

Upstream acknowledges[1] that these have been used internally only, so I
think it's okay.

Thanks.
regards,
Ankur



> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=612719#c6