Bug 2003786

Summary:	Review Request: libgnome-volume-control - An unstable GObject API for accessing PulseAudio
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jani Juhani Sinervo <jani>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status:	CLOSED DEFERRED	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	ngompa13, package-review
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-05-15 12:32:55 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	2003783

Description Jani Juhani Sinervo 2021-09-13 17:11:04 UTC

Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/libgnome-volume-control/libgnome-volume-control.spec
SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/libgnome-volume-control/libgnome-volume-control-0-1.20210315gitc5ab603.fc34.src.rpm
Description: An unstable GObject API for accessing PulseAudio
Fedora Account System Username: sham1

The main patching is to make sure that this library can be used without bundling it, as per this decision <https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/476>.

Latest COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sham1/budgie-desktop/build/2695083/

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2021-09-13 20:49:11 UTC

Taking this review.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2021-11-21 14:20:44 UTC

I'm not sure this is a good idea. This thing has an unstable API and ABI, and upstream *really* doesn't want this packaged as a separate component.

But, since the FPC decision exists...

> Version:	0
> Release:	1.20210315gitc5ab603%{?dist}

This should probably be reworked to use the snapshot versioning: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_complex_versioning

Comment 3 Jani Juhani Sinervo 2021-12-07 19:08:49 UTC

I do agree that packaging libgvc like this is not at all what should be done.

But unless one could convince the packaging committee, or whichever instance nowadays manages bundled libraries, to reconsider the former position and allow for budgie-desktop to bundle gvc, it has to be done this way.

> This should probably be reworked to use the snapshot versioning

Would that work? I mean, the "Upstream has never chosen a version" section says that the Version must be set to 0, while the snapshot versioning implies that it would have to look something like:

> 0^20210315gitc5ab603

Would this be proper considering the guidelines?

Comment 4 Neal Gompa 2021-12-08 14:20:41 UTC

(In reply to Jani Juhani Sinervo from comment #3)
> I do agree that packaging libgvc like this is not at all what should be done.
> 
> But unless one could convince the packaging committee, or whichever instance
> nowadays manages bundled libraries, to reconsider the former position and
> allow for budgie-desktop to bundle gvc, it has to be done this way.
> 
> > This should probably be reworked to use the snapshot versioning
> 
> Would that work? I mean, the "Upstream has never chosen a version" section
> says that the Version must be set to 0, while the snapshot versioning
> implies that it would have to look something like:
> 
> > 0^20210315gitc5ab603
> 
> Would this be proper considering the guidelines?

Yeah, that'd work.

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2022-05-15 12:32:55 UTC

This has been open with no activity for almost a year. I'm closing this as a dead review. Feel free to reopen if you wish to pursue this.