Bug 870202 - Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
Summary: Review Request: aqualung - Advanced music player
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On: 430366
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-10-25 19:28 UTC by Antonio Trande
Modified: 2014-03-09 23:12 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

(edit)
Clone Of:
(edit)
Last Closed: 2012-10-26 17:56:45 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Antonio Trande 2012-10-25 19:28:13 UTC
Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung-0.9-0.1.beta11.fc17.src.rpm

Description: Aqualung is an advanced music player primarily targeted at the
GNU/Linux operating system, but also usable on FreeBSD, OpenBSD,
Cygwin and also runs on Microsoft Windows.

Fedora Account System Username: sagitter

Comment 1 Mohamed El Morabity 2012-10-25 20:02:09 UTC
This package requires lame, which is not in official Fedora repositories for legal reasons:
   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3
As a result, your package is not eligible for Fedora.
Maybe your package should take place in some third-party repository:
   https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories

Comment 2 Antonio Trande 2012-10-25 20:07:59 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> This package requires lame, which is not in official Fedora repositories for
> legal reasons:
>    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3
> As a result, your package is not eligible for Fedora.
> Maybe your package should take place in some third-party repository:
>    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories

Hi Mohamed

Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support.

Comment 3 Antonio Trande 2012-10-25 20:20:19 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > This package requires lame, which is not in official Fedora repositories for
> > legal reasons:
> >    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Multimedia/MP3
> > As a result, your package is not eligible for Fedora.
> > Maybe your package should take place in some third-party repository:
> >    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Third_party_repositories
> 
> Hi Mohamed
> Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support.

Spec URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung.spec
SRPM URL: http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/aqualung-0.9-0.1.beta11.fc17.src.rpm

Comment 4 Mohamed El Morabity 2012-10-25 20:22:47 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support.
Since aqualung is a monolithic application (there's no modules or such for media support), it maybe very very difficult for third-party repositories to provide the missing bits to extend Aqualung support to nonfree formats.
I *strongly* advice you to submit aqualung to some third-party repository. Users will thank you :).

Comment 5 Mohamed El Morabity 2012-10-25 20:25:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support.
> Since aqualung is a monolithic application (there's no modules or such for
> media support), it maybe very very difficult for third-party repositories to
> provide the missing bits to extend Aqualung support to nonfree formats.
> I *strongly* advice you to submit aqualung to some third-party repository.
> Users will thank you :).
You can have a look at this review for VLC, given up for similar reasons:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=583236

Comment 6 Antonio Trande 2012-10-25 20:37:01 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Really I don't ever use mp3 file. So I can disable lame support.
> Since aqualung is a monolithic application (there's no modules or such for
> media support), it maybe very very difficult for third-party repositories to
> provide the missing bits to extend Aqualung support to nonfree formats.
> I *strongly* advice you to submit aqualung to some third-party repository.
> Users will thank you :).

Thank you for your explanation.
Are you saying me that aqualung without non-free codecs support could be useless ? 
:)
I wish create a rpm with a software free of nonfree-codecs and of everything else I'm not interested ... :)

Comment 7 Antonio Trande 2012-10-26 17:56:45 UTC
> I *strongly* advice you to submit aqualung to some third-party repository.
> Users will thank you :).

I think of suggest aqualung in RPMFusion. 
See you next time (or next package review). :)

Regards.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.