Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 470913
Review Request: lv2core - An Audio Plugin Standard
Last modified: 2009-03-16 00:12:54 EDT
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/lv2core.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/lv2core-2.0-1.fc10.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. Ardour and other Fedora apps will use this once it has been approved. This is the second time I've submitted it. I dropped the ball the first time around (several months ago).
*** Bug 232465 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I note that this still includes a .pc file and is still arch-specific. I know the old ticket was closed but there are still open questions there and it would be really nice if you could address them. Comment #14 from Peter Jones, specifically.
We should include the .pc file because packages depending on this package, like slv2, expect to find one (to test the version, I think) and there's no need to deviate from upstream. I've added the %define debug_package %{nil} you suggested. Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/lv2core.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/Fedora/lv2core-2.0-2.fc10.src.rpm Thanks, AG
In bug 232465 comment 2 I pointed out that the package is dual-licenced: API header is LGPLv2+, data file is MIT. => License: LGPLv2+ and MIT Authors's COPYING file says "BSD-style", but the licence text matches this: http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php It is not clear to me why neither the LV2 bundledir ( %{_libdir}/lv2 ) nor the bundle name ( lv2core.lv2 ) are defined anywhere in the lv2.h file. That means applications would need to define it themselves. Hopefully they get it right and agree on a standard path. Home page lists a rev3 (2008-11-08) with a comment in the ChangeLog that says "unstable". Can't find any such classification of rev2. > %files > %doc AUTHORS COPYING README > %defattr(-,root,root,-) I suggest moving the %defattr one line up. Actually rpmlint reports this, too. > Summary: An Audio Plugin Standard I would drop the "An ". ;) Starting the %description with the following sentence from the home page would be an improvement: LV2 is a standard for plugins and matching host applications, mainly targeted at audio processing and generation. With those changes, which can be applied in pkg cvs, it's fine packaging-wise: APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: lv2core Short Description: Audio Plugin Standard Owners: green Branches: F-10 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Closed - thanks!
I believe that this package should be noarch and the .pc file should go to /usr/share/pkgconfig . The files %{_datadir}/lv2 that are in the main package are actually devel files. They are templates to write lv2 plugins and are not needed during runtime. So only a devel package should be generated from the SRPM. Also, I can't find the F-10 build. Additionally, there is a new upstream version. I'm going to ask pkgdb access to fix these issues.
I opened a new bug to address the above issues. Ref: bug 490398