Bug 1796370 - Review Request: pipewire0.2 - PipeWire 0.2 compatibility libraries
Summary: Review Request: pipewire0.2 - PipeWire 0.2 compatibility libraries
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Kalev Lember
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-01-30 09:51 UTC by Wim Taymans
Modified: 2020-02-12 10:49 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-02-12 10:49:30 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
klember: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Wim Taymans 2020-01-30 09:51:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SPECS/pipewire0.2.spec
SRPM URL: https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SRPMS/pipewire0.2-0.2.7-1.fc32.src.rpm
Description: PipeWire 0.2 compatibility libraries
Fedora Account System Username: wtaymans

PipeWire 0.3 will be an API change. Existing applications can continue to work when using these compatibility libraries. The 0.3 version of PipeWire daemon is backwards compatible with 0.2 clients.

Comment 1 Kalev Lember 2020-01-30 10:32:30 UTC
Taking for review.

Comment 2 Fabio Valentini 2020-01-30 10:44:54 UTC
Just to make sure you know, you don't absolutely have to re-review compat libraries, unless the package is doing something weird.

See (second bullet point): https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ReviewGuidelines/#_package_review_process

Comment 3 Kalev Lember 2020-02-05 14:24:38 UTC
Fabio: Thanks!

Wim: This looks good to me, with just one question: is the stuff under %{_libdir}/spa/ supposed to be parallel installable? I suspect it's going to conflict with 0.3; maybe it would be best to just drop the spa plugins from the compat package?

Also, if we need spa plugins in pipewire-libs package (and I think we do, I remember asking you a while back if the client-side libraries use spa and you said yes), would it make sense to make them live in a versioned subdirectory in the new 0.3 version? Maybe I'm just confused how it's all supposed to work :)

Comment 4 Wim Taymans 2020-02-05 14:37:47 UTC
(In reply to Kalev Lember from comment #3)
> Wim: This looks good to me, with just one question: is the stuff under
> %{_libdir}/spa/ supposed to be parallel installable? I suspect it's going to
> conflict with 0.3; maybe it would be best to just drop the spa plugins from
> the compat package?

The old plugins are not compatible with the new ones so they need to be parallel
installable. I changed the 0.3 version to install the plugins in %{_libdir}/spa-%{spaversion}/
so that won't be a problem

> 
> Also, if we need spa plugins in pipewire-libs package (and I think we do, I
> remember asking you a while back if the client-side libraries use spa and
> you said yes), would it make sense to make them live in a versioned
> subdirectory in the new 0.3 version? Maybe I'm just confused how it's all
> supposed to work :)

I'm going to put everything in a versioned directory now just to make sure we
can parallel install if we want.

Comment 5 Kalev Lember 2020-02-05 14:57:37 UTC
Sounds good to me, thanks!

Comment 6 Wim Taymans 2020-02-06 16:15:41 UTC
Anything I need to do to make this repo and push the specfile?

Comment 7 Kalev Lember 2020-02-06 17:16:10 UTC
Like Fabio said above, you don't actually need a review+ to create a compat library. But let me set it anyway since we already have a ticket open here :)

You should be able to do 'fedpkg request-repo pipewire0.2 1796370' now.

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-02-07 15:07:23 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/pipewire0.2


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.