Oh god, my eyes (packaging a hairball of bundled PHP stuff, tt-rss)

[Vít Ondruch]

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!