TL;DR: I'm interested in contributing to the Games SIG and taking
advantage of Fedora's new, more permissive emulator policy! I have a
question about adding a license file in accordance with the
My name is Daniel Moerner. I am interested in joining the Games SIG
interest group and contributing to Fedora. I've been using Linux
full-time since 2007, and in my earlier years I contributed to Debian
development, focusing on tools for lightweight WMs and interpreters for
functional programming languages. I was a member of the
debian-maintainers keyring from 2009-2010, before stepping down due to
lack of time. I am now a PhD student in philosophy, and I have all the
time in the world.
I'm interested in the Games SIG because one of my main interests is
retro game emulators, for two reasons. First, I find emulators
technically interesting. Second, as a sort of historian by trade, I
value the archival nature of emulators. Even when companies stop
producing the relevant hardware, a high-quality emulator can remain.
I was excited to see the recent change in Fedora's policy on including
emulators. This opens the door to packaging a number of great FOSS
emulators which, following the guidelines, compile and run without
needing any closed-source firmware or ROM files. I am interested in
supporting the packaging of emulators abiding by these new guidelines,
both through Q & A work and through packaging them myself. I'd also be
happy to do other games Q & A work.
I've already started working on packaging an emulator for Fedora; I
chose to start with higan, an actively developed, very high accuracy
emulator for retro Nintendo systems which is licensed under the GPLv3
and has been included in Debian since 2011. I have built the package and
tested it to the best of my ability with fedora-review; it is available
on copr. I plan to submit a review ticket very soon, I am hoping to
hear back from upstream about the (minor) patches I applied to the
source. When I submit the review ticket, I'll CC this list with my
general self-introduction. I welcome any help now and later!
I do have one question about licensing that came up as I was working on
this package. The SIGs/Games/Packaging Guidelines say the following:
"License file must be included to clarify legal status, even if upstream
doesn't provide it in the source tarball."
Higan doesn't include a separate license file; rather, the license for
each component is stated in a one-line comment in the primary header
file for that component. (I know this is not ideal.) Following this
guideline, I made a license file of my own detailing the license for
each component and the header file in which it can be found stated by
the author. I also included the full text of GPLv3. But then I
noticed the following two "should" comments in fedora-review:
"[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream
[ ]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of
the license(s) for the package is included in %license."
It looks like by following the SIG Packaging Guidelines and adding a
license file, I am violating these "should" recommendations. Obviously
they are only "shoulds", but I wanted to confirm that I am understanding
the license requirements of the Games SIG correctly.
I'm excited to contribute to Fedora!
 COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoerner/higan/
For over a year I've been asking application authors upstream to add
support for the OARS content rating scheme for any apps that are
tagged as games. This means we can show some advisory text (note: no
apps are ever hidden) in the details panel on each game we show in the
software center. This helps parents to make a decision on what
applications are suitable to install for their children. It also
allows distros to choose what applications are going to be featured
depending on the locale they are aimed for. Different countries have
different cultural sensitivities and we want to use this information
to better suggest applications in the software center.
I've asked a lot of upstream authors to add this information, and the
response has been generally positive. I am aware, however, that quite
a few games are no longer "active" upstream and thus the AppData file
is shipped downstream in Fedora. This is where I need some help.
Adding the content rating is really simple. Simply visit
https://odrs.gnome.org/oars and answer the 21 multiple choice
questions, then paste the generated XML into the downstream AppData
file. The next time we regenerate the AppStream metadata your app will
have an age rating that depend on your current locale and country. If
you ship your application as a flatpak the metadata update is pretty
The following packages have a content rating already, which is awesome!
However, there is a long list of packages that don't:
I'm not sure filing bugs against these packages is going to be super
popular, but I'm wondering if adding the requirement of content_rating
to the package guidelines might be a good first step? Comments
I'm trying to put an update into f26. When I ran fedpkg update I
Creating a new update for btbuilder-0.5.14-3.fc26
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/usr/bin/bodhi", line 537, in <module>
File "/usr/bin/bodhi", line 225, in main
data = bodhi.save(**update_args)
File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedora/client/bodhi.py", line
93, in wrapper
fedora.client.bodhi.BodhiClientException: Invalid tag: btbuilder-
0.5.14-3.fc26 not tagged with any of the following tags [u'f22-updates-
candidate', u'dist-6E-epel-testing-candidate', u'dist-5E-epel-testing-
candidate', u'f21-updates-candidate', u'f24-updates-candidate',
u'epel7-testing-candidate', u'f25-updates-candidate', u'f23-updates-
Unable to determine release from build: btbuilder-0.5.14-3.fc26
Could not execute update: Could not generate update request: Command
'bodhi --bodhi-url https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ --new --release f26
--file bodhi.template btbuilder-0.5.14-3.fc26 --username dulsi'
returned non-zero exit status 1
Any suggestions on how to fix it?