Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/libgnome-volume-control/libgnome-volume-control.spec SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/libgnome-volume-control/libgnome-volume-control-0-1.20210315gitc5ab603.fc34.src.rpm Description: An unstable GObject API for accessing PulseAudio Fedora Account System Username: sham1 The main patching is to make sure that this library can be used without bundling it, as per this decision <https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/476>. Latest COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sham1/budgie-desktop/build/2695083/
Taking this review.
I'm not sure this is a good idea. This thing has an unstable API and ABI, and upstream *really* doesn't want this packaged as a separate component. But, since the FPC decision exists... > Version: 0 > Release: 1.20210315gitc5ab603%{?dist} This should probably be reworked to use the snapshot versioning: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_complex_versioning
I do agree that packaging libgvc like this is not at all what should be done. But unless one could convince the packaging committee, or whichever instance nowadays manages bundled libraries, to reconsider the former position and allow for budgie-desktop to bundle gvc, it has to be done this way. > This should probably be reworked to use the snapshot versioning Would that work? I mean, the "Upstream has never chosen a version" section says that the Version must be set to 0, while the snapshot versioning implies that it would have to look something like: > 0^20210315gitc5ab603 Would this be proper considering the guidelines?
(In reply to Jani Juhani Sinervo from comment #3) > I do agree that packaging libgvc like this is not at all what should be done. > > But unless one could convince the packaging committee, or whichever instance > nowadays manages bundled libraries, to reconsider the former position and > allow for budgie-desktop to bundle gvc, it has to be done this way. > > > This should probably be reworked to use the snapshot versioning > > Would that work? I mean, the "Upstream has never chosen a version" section > says that the Version must be set to 0, while the snapshot versioning > implies that it would have to look something like: > > > 0^20210315gitc5ab603 > > Would this be proper considering the guidelines? Yeah, that'd work.
This has been open with no activity for almost a year. I'm closing this as a dead review. Feel free to reopen if you wish to pursue this.