Bug 546866

Summary: Review Request: qffmpeg - Stripped-down fork of ffmpeg for libspice
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jeroen van Meeuwen <vanmeeuwen+fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, jbrier, lemenkov, notting, rc040203
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: 2010-11-02 10:37:17 EDT Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Jeroen van Meeuwen 2009-12-12 07:05:31 EST
Spec URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/qffmpeg.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.kanarip.com/custom/f12/SRPMS/qffmpeg-0.4.9-0.15.20080908.fc12.src.rpm
Description: This is a stripped down version of upstream FFMPEG including only the codecs used by SPICE in order to avoid inadvertantly bundling or shipping any
encumbered code or binaries.

qffmpeg is a requirement for the remainder of the SPICE stack right now, although obviously the right thing to do is to eliminate the fork altogether and move forward using ffmpeg as available through Fedora.
Comment 1 Ralf Corsepius 2009-12-12 08:37:34 EST
Cf. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546169
for what I think about such forks.

If you want it formally - NEEDSWORK:
* Invalid Source0-URL - Package has no upstream.

* Consider your application to dlopen ffmpeg

* Package conflicts with ffmpeg
Comment 2 Jeroen van Meeuwen 2009-12-27 18:10:47 EST
Ralf, agreed. It's dependencies seem to build just fine with regular ffmpeg.
Comment 3 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-02 10:27:32 EDT
Is this still needed at all?  The spice stuff seems to have gone in without needing this package.
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-02 10:37:17 EDT
After some discussion on IRC, it seems this truly isn't necessary.  Not to mention the fact that the links are dead anyway.  I'll just go ahead and close this out.