Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 483376
Review Request: fluid-soundfont - Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Last modified: 2009-04-15 13:58:25 EDT
Spec URL: http://6mata.com:8014/review/fluid-soundfont.spec
SRPM URL: http://6mata.com:8014/review/fluid-soundfont-3.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
WARNING: SRPM is 130MB
Release 3 of Frank Wen's pro-quality GM/GS soundfont. The soundfont has lots of
excellent samples, including all the GM instruments along side with the GS
instruments that are recycled and reprogrammed versions of the GM presets.
rpmlint is silent.
Since we have only one soundfont for the entire distribution (which is also nonfree), I want to include this free soundfont in Fedora. In my opinion, it is nicer than PersonalCopy-Lite-soundfont.
As I explained in the SPEC file, the upstream tarball has the soundfont only in sfArk format, which had to be converted to linux-friendly sf2 format by a non-free software. Debian folks already did this and we are borrowing their ready-to-go tarball.
This soundfont is 9 years old. Originally it didn't specify a license, although the README file inside the original tarball always said that "this is free". The author licensed this soundfont under MIT recently.
Here is the story of when&how this soundfont received the MIT license and it got debianized.
Forgot the link. Here it is:
Adding Hans to the CC.
Hans, originally I made "GUS patches" subpackages for this one, the same way you did for the PersonalCopy soundfont. But then I ended up with a ~1.5GB RPM. Shall we look for a method to cut that size? Do we need GUS patches for this? Users can build them easily themselves if they want.
Woa, fluid relicensed under an MIT license, that is great news! You know I spend *days* mailing with soundfont authors to even find one that is freely re-distributable (albeit not free), so that we could atleast have midi playback functionality in Fedora.
Anyways about the gus patches, *a* set of gus patches is needed for (older) timidity derived midi playing code, as found in libtimidity, allegro and SDL_mixer to be able to play midi. timidity itself now can also handle sf2 files.
Given that all those which need gus patches explictly require PersonalCopy-Lite's gus patches, and that those do a decent job (sf2 to gus format conversion is not perfect, as the feature sets of the 2 formats are not a 100% match), I see no use in having a gus version of the fluid font, esp. given the huge package size this will cause.
I made an attempt to modify the SPEC file so that one can build the GUS subpackages by passing "--with GUS" to rpmbuild:
Should I leave it like this, or should I revert?
Having --with GUS is fine with me, but seems of little value, so dropping it might be a good idea too.
I managed to cut the size of the patches subpackage down to ~250MB by removing some banks (that are also not in the PersonalCopy-Lite) and by extracting only a single layer from each instrument. But 250MB is still too much.
I'll work on it more. Here's my working copy if someone wants to help:
> Given that all those which need gus patches explictly require
> PersonalCopy-Lite's gus patches, and that those do a decent job (sf2 to gus
> format conversion is not perfect, as the feature sets of the 2 formats are not
> a 100% match), I see no use in having a gus version of the fluid font, esp.
> given the huge package size this will cause.
Well, the use would be to make them use a truly Free soundfont by default instead of a just freely distributable one.
Which one should I be reviewing, with gus or without?
What do you think? Is 250MB too large for an RPM?
(it is really not hard for users to create these gus patches themselves)
Unless you think there is a serious advantage to the larger package, I'd prefer the smaller one. :)
No, the gus patches are going to a different subpackage, which will be ~250MB.
The main package size won't change (~131MB)
Oh, by the way, I can trim a few more banks to get the gus subpackage down to
as low as ~100MB or so. But then it won't have as many banks as
You'd know better than I would as to what decisions to make here. Make one and let me know what to review. :)
Well, it is a matter of choice between freedom and quality (fluid-soundfont) versus convenience in terms of package size (pclite-soundfont).
I would personally vote for freedom and quality. Also, I believe that many people who are into music/audio production prefer quality.
If it is up to me I would choose
Note that, you will need to download the SRPM in the original message and overwrite its SPEC file with this one to review the package.
Should I reupload the SRPM with the above SPEC (it's a huge file, and thus pain) ?
- rpmlint checks return: nothing
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (MIT) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86_64)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
Whoops, forgot to mention that I reviewed/approved the one with gus.
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: fluid-soundfont
Short Description: Pro-quality GM/GS soundfont
Branches: F-9 F-10
fluid-soundfont-3.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10.
fluid-soundfont-3.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.