[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Pre-approval for gupnp-packages.

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 04:25:19PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Hi,
> On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 04:14:09PM +0200, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > > As there were no symbols files for the old one in unstable: are you sure there
> > > are no disappearing symbols?  (Maybe gupnp_context_manager_finalize...)  If
> > 
> > Upstream seems to have a very good clue when it comes to ABI.
> > c.f. gupnp-av and the introduction of the _size64 function rather then fixing
> > (and breaking ABI of) the _size function, for large file support on
> > 32bit arches. That was done intentionally to avoid ABI breakage.
> > 
> > gupnp_context_manager_finalize was static, so it shouldn't affect the ABI.
> > 
> > (The good upstream ABI clue might be related to our fellow DD, Ross Burton,
> > is (part of) upstream. :))
> Ok then.
> > > people could stop reindent files, that would be helpful, too.  gvalue-util.c
> > > doesn't make me happy.  Using strtoul instead of atoi... why?[1]
> > 
> > While the page you refer to points out some flaws with strtoul, atoi really
> > isn't any better. It's probably of questional "bug fix" value though, just
> > like the reindentation...
> Ok.
> > > There isn't a GNU Lesser General Public License version 2, right?  That
> > > replacement seems to be made of fail.  Didn't review more, sorry.
> > 
> > The license change (which probably is just a clarification of the original
> > intent) is one of the reasons why I'd like to avoid shipping the old version.
> > 
> > As for if a 2.0 version exists, most people still don't seem to tell
> > Library or Lesser GPL apart, so my interpretation would be:
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/lgpl-2.0.html
> The point is that COPYING is actually taking about the Lesser 2.1.  So they
> should name the correct license (which they are free to relicense it to) in the
> license headers.
> Furthermore you now install dlna profiles, whatever they are.  I'm not really
> able to review the XML changes, and they weren't previously used in the
> package?

The installed dlna profiles files are machine readable xml files which try
to define the rules for when a media file belongs to a certain "profile"
in the (secret) DLNA standard.
Unless you have access to the DLNA standard doc, I see no way for you (or me)
to review the profiles.

> And in general it looks like a too big diff to review. ):

Ok, will file for removal.

> Kind regards,
> Philipp Kern

Andreas Henriksson

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: