Created attachment 319404 [details] awesfx-0.5.1c-1.fc9.src.rpm Description of problem: awesfx package is missing Additional info: newer versions compile just fine with current kernel headers.
Are you planning to maintain this?
I don't see that Artem is in the packager group (or in FAS at all unless my searching skills are lacking) so I'd guess not, but I'll go ahead and set NEEDSPONSOR anyway. The package will need some work before its acceptable, though: awesfx.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/awesfx-0.5.1c/gu11-rom/ADDENDUM.TXT awesfx.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/midi/GU11-ROM.SF2 awesfx.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/awesfx-0.5.1c/gu11-rom/GU11-ROM.INS awesfx.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/awesfx-0.5.1c/gu11-rom/GU11-ROM.TXT awesfx.x86_64: W: summary-ended-with-dot Utility programs for the AWE32/Emu10k1 sound driver. awesfx.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long the AWE32/Emu10k1 sound driver. AWESFX includes asxfload and sfxload, the soundfont awesfx.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL/distributable awesfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL/distributable Also, this all seems to conflict with the statement in bug 405131 that awesfx is quite obsolete now.
I communicated with the user on IRC, where they indicated they had no desire to maintain this package. Unless they have changed their mind, I suggest we close this NOTABUG.
I hope someone will come up and maintain this package. I'm sorry but I don't have enough competence and I'm not much inclined to do this kind of work. The last but not the least - why is this package obsolete? I don't know any other utilities which can load sound banks into Creative sound cards.
Since this is currently a package review ticket, and a package isn't actually being submitted here, I can only close it. I would try to assign it to a more appropriate component, except that it started at "kernel" for some reason. Bottom line: Fedora is a community project. If someone steps up to maintain the package, they can open a proper package review ticket and, once the review process is done, the package can reappear in Fedora. Without a maintainer, the package can't be in the distro.
(In reply to comment #5) > Since this is currently a package review ticket, and a package isn't actually > being submitted here, I can only close it. I would try to assign it to a more > appropriate component, except that it started at "kernel" for some reason. > > Bottom line: Fedora is a community project. If someone steps up to maintain > the package, they can open a proper package review ticket and, once the review > process is done, the package can reappear in Fedora. Without a maintainer, the > package can't be in the distro. I have an approved package review here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490061 should i ask for a cvs change package or cvs new package admin request?
(In reply to comment #6) > I have an approved package review here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490061 > > should i ask for a cvs change package or cvs new package admin request? There is a CVS module for the package, so I'd say a cvs change request, but in any case it's done by the CVS admin who will surely do the right thing even if you make a new package admin request.