Packaging of PlayOnLinux
ibmalone at gmail.com
Thu Oct 15 12:54:35 UTC 2015
On 15 October 2015 at 06:55, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Bastien Nocera <bnocera at redhat.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> Dne 14.10.2015 v 16:50 Bastien Nocera napsal(a):
>>> > If the application cannot work without downloading anything, or being
>>> > supplied
>>> > third-party (sometimes proprietary) applications, then it's closer to an
>>> > emulator than a front-end that's generally useful.
>>> The guidelines speaks about *dependencies*.
>>> I think that the idea behind this wording was "runtime dependencies". To deny
>>> application which can not even run without
>>> those proprietary deps.
>>> PlayOnLinux is mainly for games, but you can run any Windows program using
>>> that. Even Gimp or Firefox (I could not
>>> remember program which does not have native linux version and is free).
>>> So it may not be useful for you, but it can be useful for somebody else.
>>> For me PlayOnLinux is much closer to virt-manager.
>>> > And emulators aren't allowed in Fedora.
>>> You mean like Wine, all those terminal emulators, QEMU, atari++, hercules,
>>> fuse-emulator and lots of others?
>> The ones listed here:
> Wel the reason is not "because they are emulators" but "If it requires
> ROMs (or image files in any format) of copyrighted or patented
> material to be useful (and the owners of those copyrights and patents
> have not given their express written permission), then it's not
> permitted. " ... so "emulators aren't allowed is not what the
> guidelines say" (the wording is a bit odd though).
Well, it does say "Most emulators (applications which emulate another
platform) are not permitted for inclusion in Fedora." It probably
shouldn't use the term emulators or at least qualify it a bit. Maybe
"console emulators" might be a more accurate term. As people have
mentioned, wine, dosbox, qemu. Some of those aren't emulators in the
More information about the devel