Bug 222534
Summary: | Review Request: libsnack - Snack Sound Toolkit provides audio handling to tlc/tk or python | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Sander Hoentjen <sander> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Deji Akingunola <dakingun> |
Status: | CLOSED NOTABUG | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | wart |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-01-20 01:11:33 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: | 201449 |
Description
Sander Hoentjen
2007-01-13 14:16:28 UTC
Package builds fine, but have minor issue; - The Release field should have .%{?dist} tag added dist tag Spec URL: http://fedora.hoentjen.eu/libsnack/libsnack.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.hoentjen.eu/libsnack/libsnack-2.2.10-2.src.rpm * doesn't build with RPM %optflags * Python docs are included, python module is NOT. Package description also mentions Python support. * snacksphere docs are included, snacksphere is NOT. Trying to load it fails. pkgIndex also lists snacksphere, although it's missing. * licence is not included * the "make test" suite fails here * Tcl SIG - What are the usual naming guidelines for this? The "snack" -> "libsnack" name is questionable. (In reply to comment #3) > * Tcl SIG - What are the usual naming guidelines for this? > The "snack" -> "libsnack" name is questionable. I don't think there is a Tcl SIG, but it might be nice to have one. 'snack' would be a more appropriate name, since that's what upstream uses, and that's what Tcl developers would likely expect it to be called. I had considered packaging snack a few months ago, but noticed that it comes with a mp3 decoder (generic/mkFormatMP3.c), which is unacceptible for Fedora. You'll have to regenerate the tarball to omit the mp3 decoding bits before it can be accepted. Yes, browsing the rather large tarball is another thing to do. I only had a first brief look because the package description as quoted at the top of the ticket says This packages includes Ogg library. which is confusing enough to suggest that possibly it ships an included libogg or something like that. That made it worth taking a look. The description (s/packages/package/) refers to libsnackogg.so which wasn't obvious. ;) This also doesn't build on x86_64. The included patch to configure fixes the search path for tclConfig.sh on 64-bit systems, but doesn't do the for tkConfig.sh. (In reply to comment #5) > which is confusing enough to suggest that possibly it ships an > included libogg or something like that. That made it worth taking > a look. The description (s/packages/package/) refers to libsnackogg.so > which wasn't obvious. ;) It does include 'SnackOgg.c', which has a suspicious header that reads: * THIS FILE IS PART OF THE OggVorbis SOFTWARE CODEC SOURCE CODE. * ...and 2000 lines of Ogg manipulation code. You might want to see if you can omit this source file (rm it during %prep) and build against libogg/libvorbis instead. (In reply to comment #6) > This also doesn't build on x86_64. The included patch to configure fixes the > search path for tclConfig.sh on 64-bit systems, but doesn't do the for tkConfig.sh. ...it also needs 'BuildRequires: tk-devel'. hmm, sorry for the bad shape.. i actually took this from somewhere else some time ago, built it for my own use and *thought* i had checked it back then for fedora like quality. Let me work on it a bit and you will hear from me again. > SnackOgg.c *urks* Additionally, it links against libogg.so.0, libvorbis.so.0, and libvorbisenc.so.2,... > generic/ Included are several files licenced by Microsoft with the terms in the "BSD.txt" file. It requires that the file is included and that a licence change (e.g. to the GPL) is indicated at the top of each file to which the new licence applies. That is not the case, hence the BSD.txt licence applies to the whole product. In the README they write that the GPL is only for the included mp3 decoder, however that one may not be sold without prior written consent by its author. Plus, other files, such as jkSynthesis.c and sound.c, have a GPL header, so the entire release must be GPL. Licence mess. Anything happening here? It's been over five months since the last comment. after my last comment I tried to contact the author. I never got any response. If upstream is dead, I think I can't package this, I don't have the required knowledge to fix everything. I guess we should just close this. If upstream has come back to life, feel free to reopen. |