Spec Name or Url:http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/akode-2.0-0.1.b3.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/akode-2.0-0.1.b3.src.rpm Description: aKode is a simple audio-decoding frame-work that provides a uniform interface to decode the most common audio-formats. It also has a direct playback option for a number of audio-outputs. aKode currently has the following decoder plugins: * mpc: Decodes musepack aka mpc audio. LGPL licensed. * xiph: Decodes FLAC, Ogg/FLAC, Speex and Ogg Vorbis audio. LGPL licensed, patent free. aKode also has the following audio outputs: * oss: Outputs to the OSS (Open Sound System) of for instance FreeBSD and Linux 2.4 * alsa: Outputs to ALSA of Linux 2.6 (version 0.9 or 1.x required) (dmix is recommended).
See also akode-extras submission to livna: http://bugzilla.livna.org/show_bug.cgi?id=667
rpmlint complains that the description lines about xiph, oss, and alsa are too long. Just to be clear : you are targeting FC5, right ? Because KDE 3.4 as shipped with FC4 includes akode (repoquery --repoid=base -l kdemultimedia | grep libakode).
Yes, target = fc5 (for kde-3.5.0) FYI, developer promised a newer rc later today, so a revision should hopefully appear soon.
%changelog * Wed Nov 23 2005 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 2.0-0.4.rc1 - 2.0rc1 Spec Name or Url:http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/akode-2.0-0.4.rc1.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/akode-2.0-0.4.rc1.src.rpm
This could now use a FC4 build too, as KDE 3.5 has been pushed as a FC4 update.
Agreed, target anybody with kde >= 3.5
%changelog * Mon Dec 19 2005 Rex Dieter <rexdieter[AT]users.sf.net> 2.0-1 - 2.0(final) Spec Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/SPECS/akode-2.0-1.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://apt.kde-redhat.org/apt/kde-redhat/all/SRPMS.stable/akode-2.0-1.src.rpm
Could the powers at be please approve this quickly? Akode being unavailable is technically a regression for FC4. I'm not sure any users will really lose productivity due to lack of audio codecs, but then again you never know.
Kevin, Core's version of kdemultimedia never did provide akode support. That was provided by kdemultimedia-extras (from a certain uname-able repo that rhymes with bivna. (-:)
Kevin said: "Could the powers at be please approve this quickly?". All that is lacking is a package review, and we can get this published.
> Core's version of kdemultimedia never did provide akode support. That's true, as we are at technicalities... ;-) But more to the point: > All that is lacking is a package review From another existing package maintainer as by the procedures, right? Or can untrusted users like me :-( now review packages?
See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines in the "Reviewer" section. No need to be an existing maintainer.
Oops, per Comment #2, apparently akode *was* in Core's kdemultimedia pkg (probably only the "free" bit(s)).
Reviewer must own a package in Fedora Extras (quote: "The primary Reviewer can be any current package owner, unless the Contributor is a first timer."). Resolving apt.kde-redhat.org... failed: Temporary failure in name resolution.
Michael, Re: Reviewer, sorry for the misinformation (I didn't read it closely enought). Hmm... kde-redhat.org resolves for me. You can alternatively use apt.unl.edu. In the meantime, I'll have to check things with our DNS provider.
rpmlint output [dennis@asgard ~]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-i386-core/result/akode-2.0-1.fc5.i386.rpm E: akode invalid-soname /usr/lib/libakode_xiph_decoder.so libakode_xiph_decoder.so E: akode invalid-soname /usr/lib/libakode_alsa_sink.so libakode_alsa_sink.so E: akode invalid-soname /usr/lib/libakode_src_resampler.so libakode_src_resampler.so E: akode invalid-soname /usr/lib/libakode_mpc_decoder.so libakode_mpc_decoder.so E: akode invalid-soname /usr/lib/libakode_oss_sink.so libakode_oss_sink.so E: akode zero-length /usr/share/doc/akode-2.0/NEWS the invalid sonames i don't think are a huge deal i think rpmlint is complaining about the _ , NEWS file should be obmitted Good: md5sums match upstream Builds in mock for development on x86 Naming is ok good split on devel package I cant approve as this is assigned to someone else. but would do if its reassigned, and as along as no one objects to the sonames.
> I cant approve as this is assigned to someone else. All review requests are assigned to gdk bye default, just reassign it to yourself and approve it
I cant reassign, bugzilla doesn't allow me to. the only option i have is to leave as new.
You need to request membership in the fedora-bugs group in the accounts system. That will give you the necessary capabilities in bugzilla.
Ok based on my previous review If you remove the empty NEWS file and since no one has said the sonames are an issue APPROVED
OK, NEWS is history. Thanks.
imported.