Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/lv2.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/lv2-1.0-0.1.beta1.src.rpm Description: There are a large number of open source and free software synthesis packages in use or development at this time. This API ('LV2') attempts to give programmers the ability to write simple 'plugin' audio processors in C/C++ and link them dynamically ('plug') into a range of these packages ('hosts'). It should be possible for any host and any plugin to communicate completely through this interface. LV2 is a successor to LADSPA, created to address the limitations of LADSPA which many hosts have outgrown.
A few things: 1) This package creates 0 byte debuginfo packages. 2) There is no arch-dependent files in this package, it should be a noarch. This should fix the problem with #1 too. 3) Why do you create /usr/lib/lv2 directory?
> http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/lv2.spec Is broken. 1870 0x00 bytes. > License: LGPL The lv2.ttl file uses the MIT licence. Only lv2.h is LGPL. Is there any package that "BuildRequires: lv2-devel" and accesses the lv2.ttl file at its current location?
It's been over half a year since the last comment; is there still interest in this package?
(In reply to comment #3) > It's been over half a year since the last comment; is there still interest in > this package? Yes, I think so. The first official version of lv2 just came out about a week ago. I'll update this submission in the next couple of weeks.
Upstream's 1.0 release is called lv2core. I've renamed and updated this package appropriately. http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/lv2core.spec http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/lv2core-1.0-1.fc8.src.rpm
Did you really want to set fedora-review to '?'? It will drop out of the list of new review tickets, so if you don't already have a reviewer then nobody will see it.
(In reply to comment #6) > Did you really want to set fedora-review to '?'? It will drop out of the list > of new review tickets, so if you don't already have a reviewer then nobody will > see it. Thanks. I've changed it. AG
Builds OK; here's some rpmlint output: lv2core.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL2.1+ Valid tags are at http://fedoraproject.org/Licensing; should be LGPLv2+. lv2core.x86_64: E: no-binary lv2core.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib lv2core-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package Comment #1 mentioned that this package should be noarch; is there some reason why it needs to be arch-specific? I can't find any reason why it would. lv2core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation This is OK. I'm afraid I don't know what a .ttl file is, but just to be sure: can you confirm that the two ttl files are needed at runtime and not just during compilation? I'm trying to determine whether or not they need to live in the -devel package (which would sort of make the whole thing a -devel package, I guess).
(In reply to comment #8) > Builds OK; here's some rpmlint output: > > lv2core.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL2.1+ > Valid tags are at http://fedoraproject.org/Licensing; should be LGPLv2+. Ok. > > lv2core.x86_64: E: no-binary > lv2core.x86_64: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > lv2core-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package > Comment #1 mentioned that this package should be noarch; is there some reason > why it needs to be arch-specific? I can't find any reason why it would. It's conceivable that the .pc file could be different for different architectures. > lv2core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > This is OK. > > I'm afraid I don't know what a .ttl file is, but just to be sure: can you > confirm that the two ttl files are needed at runtime and not just during > compilation? I'm trying to determine whether or not they need to live in the > -devel package (which would sort of make the whole thing a -devel package, I guess). They are used at runtime by lv2 hosts.
> It's conceivable that the .pc file could be different for different > architectures. Then that would be a multilib conflict, and hence another blocker. Anything in the -devel package that installs into the same location on 64bit and 32bit architectures must be identical.
(In reply to comment #10) > Then that would be a multilib conflict, and hence another blocker. Anything in > the -devel package that installs into the same location on 64bit and 32bit > architectures must be identical. The .pc files get installed under %{_libdir}/pkgconfig so there would be no multilib conflict.
Updated files here: http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/lv2core.spec http://spindazzle.org/Fedora/lv2core-1.0-2.fc8.src.rpm
If you really think this should be noarch, then you will need to disable the debuginfo package, because it's pointless to ship an empty one: %define debug_package %{nil}
Why does this need a .pc file at all? Everything that it'll display is (and has always been) the compiler default. If you remove it, building against the header will work just as well, but there'll be no need for it to be arch-specific.
Well, it's been quite some time since the last comment from the submitter. Setting NEEDINFO; I'll close this soon if there's no further progress.
This has been in needinfo for over a month, closing.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 470913 ***