https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522
--- Comment #98 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <cschalle(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #97)
(In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #95)
...
> Can you re-approve the bug again?
Once again. I would not approve this unless the package is named
fdk-aac-free to denote the incompleteness of the library (possibly with a
virtual provide fdk-aac).
I see people make a big issue of this on this thread, but
do you actually have
a real world file that gives you problems? Or are you tilting at windmills
here?
If that can be done, both fedora fdk-aac-free and rpmfusion
fdk-aac-free
would use a normal packaging method. (and they would conflicts).
For users, it would only be a matter to replace the former with the latter.
Ok, so
you want the package to be called -free at the end, but no changes to
the .so file names etc., right?
But you need to provide a bug-free fdk-aac implementation. It's
not at all
acceptable that have unfixable items on the fedora side that would only be
fixed by using the fully implemented version.
What do you mean with a 'bug
free' implementation?
Please also reminds that rpmfusion has version 1.6 since fc28 and I
don't
see that would have updated the fedora counterpart in time. This is a
problem for us.
To me, it means there is a need for a new legal review for each library
update.
The only reason the package didn't get updated is due to the quagmire of this
bugreport.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component