Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libimagequant.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libimagequant-2.8.2-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Palette quantization library Fedora Account System Username: smani There is a pending request on fedora-legal to clarify what should be written in the License field: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/JM7YJILE4GIFRD3J636EAT2PBOEND7WP/
* Reuse %{url} in Source tag * You can reuse %{name} in %install/%files sections to not dupe whole large name ;) * (!) LDFLAGS are ignored Regarding legal: it seems that code is "GPLv3+ and MIT".
Uhm, where do you see LDFLAGS being ignored? gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libimagequant.so.0 -o libimagequant.so.0 pam.lo mediancut.lo blur.lo mempool.lo viter.lo nearest.lo libimagequant.lo -Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -fopenmp -lm
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #2) > Uhm, where do you see LDFLAGS being ignored? > > gcc -shared -Wl,-soname,libimagequant.so.0 -o libimagequant.so.0 pam.lo > mediancut.lo blur.lo mempool.lo viter.lo nearest.lo libimagequant.lo > -Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld -fopenmp -lm Oops, my bad. So only other points are valid. Once licensing thing will be resolved -- I will set fedora-review+.
Spec URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libimagequant.spec SRPM URL: https://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/libimagequant-2.8.2-2.fc26.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jan 02 2017 Sandro Mani <manisandro@gmail.com> - 2.8.2-2 - Use %%name and %%url to reduce text
Legal has confirmed GPLv3 and MIT.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libimagequant
Hi, libimagequant is part of pngquant , dnf repoquery libimagequant Last metadata expiration check: 0:23:01 ago on Sun Apr 16 15:25:51 2017. libimagequant-0:2.7.0-1.fc24.i686 libimagequant-0:2.7.0-1.fc24.x86_64 libimagequant-0:2.8.1-1.fc24.i686 libimagequant-0:2.8.1-1.fc24.x86_64 did you know that ? for what do you need libimagequant without pngquant ? What is the plan for pngquant ? Thanks
Wonder how I missed that. I suppose it is sufficient if I just retire the package, upgrade path etc should work automatically? Btw, the consumer foroflibimagequant is python-pillow.
thanks, I'm working now on build pngquant with yours libimagequant .... In theory the correct is have 2 packages like we have now , since now we have 2 sources libimagequant and pngquant . I will give news soon , thanks for the feedback.
Ah indeed, looks like libimagequant isn't an integral part of pngquant, but simply bundled.
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #10) > Ah indeed, looks like libimagequant isn't an integral part of pngquant, but > simply bundled. just since 2.8.x