Bug 547993
Summary: | Package Name Change: jconvolver - Real-time Convolution Engine | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Orcan Ogetbil <oget.fedora> | ||||
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Mamoru TASAKA <mtasaka> | ||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, mattias.ellert, notting | ||||
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | mtasaka:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||
Fixed In Version: | 0.8.4-2.fc12 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
Last Closed: | 2010-01-24 14:27:24 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: | |||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Orcan Ogetbil
2009-12-16 09:50:14 UTC
Created attachment 378722 [details]
diff between the old and the new spec files
Attaching the diff between the old and the new spec files
CC'ing the original reviewer. Mattias, you can remove yourself from the CC if you do not wish to re-review this. Of course anyone else can review it too. Note that we have a broken dependency (zita-convolver/jconv) in the rawhide tree because this package is missing for the time being. It would be good to have this package reviewed before F-13 is out. Well, ? About Source1: - I checked http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/downloads/index.html , however the license of Source1 seems unclear. Would you ask upstream? - While Source0 is 128K, Source1 has 6.0M (50 times the size of Source1) and as a result while jconvolver binary rpm has 6.4M its debuginfo rpm has only 48K. Is Source2 always needed for jconvolver? Also are there any reason behind that jconvolver and -reverbs are not seperately packaged (into rpm)? Thanks Mtasaka, (In reply to comment #4) > Well, > > ? About Source1: > - I checked http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/downloads/index.html , > however the license of Source1 seems unclear. Would you ask upstream? > Sure. I just asked upstream via email. > - While Source0 is 128K, Source1 has 6.0M (50 times the size of Source1) > and as a result while jconvolver binary rpm has 6.4M its debuginfo rpm > has only 48K. > Is Source2 always needed for jconvolver? Also are there any reason > behind that jconvolver and -reverbs are not seperately packaged (into > rpm)? Ah, this is the way we used to package jconv. It is a "packager's choice" in some sense. Let me elaborate: Imagine that you are packaging an office package. The office software makes use of fonts that are under a special format that can only be opened from this particular office software. Of course the software can operate without these fonts but it is 50 times more functional if it these fonts were available. :) It is almost the same situation with jconv(olver). We can put these in a subpackage. But given the target audience is really limited to enthusiasts and these reverbs aren't updated independently from jconv(olver) software, it is not beneficial to make a subpackage (or a separate package). This package came from PlanetCCRMA. We didn't receive any user complaints about the size all this time either here or at PlanetCCRMA list. Therefore I decided to keep things the way they were for consistency. (Well, it is better that you don't compare to font packages. Now Fedora has extra guidelines for font packages and bundling fonts in this way is _strictly_ forbidden and will surely be rejected ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy ) Still I don't understand. (In reply to comment #5) > Imagine that you are packaging an office package. The office software makes use > of fonts that are under a special format that can only be opened from this > particular office software. Of course the software can operate without these > fonts but it is 50 times more functional if it these fonts were available. :) - Well, how is it different from that "xscreensaver can be used with xscreensaver-base only but installing xscreensaver-extras or xscreensaver-gl-extras makes much better" (I guess people using xscreensaver-base usually also installs xscreensaver-extras), or "firefox can be used only with it but installing plugin foo or bar makes it much better"? Seperating source (or at least creating subpackages) has some advantages - You don't have to update seperated subpackage when you apply some patches against main package - Fedora already support noarch subpackage - Source1 may have different license (as it is rather contents package) (or license may change) and seperating it can make it easier to keep track of licensing issue > It is almost the same situation with jconv(olver). We can put these in a > subpackage. But given the target audience is really limited to enthusiasts and > these reverbs aren't updated independently from jconv(olver) software, it is > not beneficial to make a subpackage (or a separate package). (Well, I may be asking you some malicious question, however I still think that bundling 50 times larger package into the main package which you are saying is not strictly needed is not good) Hi, I know "fonts" is not the best example. That's why I tried to emphasize that they were imaginary "special" fonts. Oh well... I still didn't get a response from the author. I'm removing the reverbs for now. I'll re-add them once the license is cleared up. Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/jconvolver.spec SRPM URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc12.src.rpm > - You don't have to update seperated subpackage when you > apply some patches against main package This is no big problem since we have deltarpms now :) As I said this is my choice. If there were multiple possible "plugins" available then I would probably not bundle any of them. But there is only 1 available in this case. And this was the way this has been packaged for a while, even before I took over the package. I assume that people using this software expect the reverbs to be there by now. Well for SOURCE1, I leave it to your choise how to package it (however please make upstream clarify the license first) ------------------------------------------------------- This package (jconvolver) is APPROVED by mtasaka ------------------------------------------------------- Thanks! I won't add it until the license is cleared. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jconvolver Short Description: Real-time Convolution Engine Owners: oget nando Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: cvs done. Would you rebuild this package also on F-11/12 (as you requested to add these branches) and submit push requests on bodhi? ping? Hi Mamoru, Sorry I was away for about a month (I was in the away list in the wiki though). I will get back to this soon, possibly this weekend. jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc12 jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc11 Closing. jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. jconvolver-0.8.4-2.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |