Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
Summary: Merge Review: sox Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: nobody@fedoraproject.org QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com CC: twoerner@redhat.com
Fedora Merge Review: sox
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/sox/ Initial Owner: twoerner@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kwizart@gmail.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
kwizart@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jmoskovc@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-06 10:47 EST ------- [root@kwizatz push]# libst-config --libs -lvorbisenc -lvorbisfile -logg -lasound -lm -lgsm but sox-devel doesn't BR gsm-devel alsa-lib-devel and libvorbis-devel also I have this: cc -shared -o ../libmltsox.so factory.o filter_sox.o -lst `libst-config --libs` -L../../framework -lmlt /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lgsm collect2: ld returned 1 exit status since libst-config is missing -L/usr/lib64 or x86_64, so it might need to move to pkgconfig instead. for now I might use a workaround, but it would be fine to have this fixed for F-9
I wonder if it would be valuable to have modular built for libs (then BR libtool-ltdl-devel ), I'm testing this also...
License need to be updated
sox 14.0.1 is available
static lib should be removed and .la file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
------- Additional Comments From jmoskovc@redhat.com 2008-02-07 04:56 EST ------- Hi Nicolas, what version are you talking about? The latest version in F9 uses pkgconfig and BR contains gsm-devel alsa-lib-devel and libvorbis-devel.
Thank you, Jirka
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-16 09:10 EST ------- Hi Jirka,
I was thinking about using pkgconfig with sox-devel (and Requiring the related libs there.) For what i've seen in devel, it only uses pkg-config at library detection.
Well, see the attached patch.(which i don't expect to use unless approved by the upstream project). There is maybe a better way to do this (i meant to use AM_LDFLAGS to avoid_version seems a little hacky). Also it would be good to provide a pkg-config detection for packages that need sox-devel (Work in progress, but it will depend on the used scheme, either with or without libltdl, which change a lot).
As a third part packager; I would provide a sox-libs-freeworld for the libmad and others libs. Maybe that would need to define a more accurate %file section for {_libdir}/sox/*.so .
For the amr part , as this is nonfree but also non-redistributable, I cannot hold any sox-libs-nonfree package and that would be cared at end-users rebuild of the freeworld package. for info i've made a nosrc package for amr{nv,wb}, you can see here: http://kwizart.free.fr/fedora/nosrc/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-16 09:11 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=295071) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=295071&action=view) Patch to add modular sox built (need to be approved upstream)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-02-16 09:30 EST ------- I have submitted the path here: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1894926&gr...
Also , found an interesting pkg-config patch here: https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=6ffb82fd0802130847...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-04-16 16:27 EST ------- No news, any advices to add pkgconfig support for sox-devel ? A fixed support for libtool-ltdl-devel could be nice also...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: sox
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
------- Additional Comments From kwizart@gmail.com 2008-08-01 06:19 EST ------- My patches have been merged upstream (actually a modified version)
Please add libtool-ltdl-devel BR on the next sox release (This is the default option on debian for some time already) Pkg-config support will requires to add Requires: pkgconfig on sox-devel The next release will create a play and record symlinks to sox.
We will need to take care of them via alternatives and ask on fedora-devel ml for a potential conflict between command line audio player and recorder with suches symlinks.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
Jiri Moskovcak jmoskovc@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Customer Facing|NO |---
--- Comment #8 from Jiri Moskovcak jmoskovc@redhat.com 2008-08-07 09:45:38 EDT --- Hi, I updated to version 14.1 and make it modular as you suggested can you please take a look at the spec file?
Thanks, Jirka
Spec: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/sox.spec SRPM: http://people.fedoraproject.org/~jmoskovc/sox-14.1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
--- Comment #9 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-08-07 11:33:22 EDT --- There is a problem. As my patch was truncated. And actually, wasn't present in 14.1.0 see the attached untruncated backported patch
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
--- Comment #10 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-08-07 11:35:02 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=313708) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=313708) Patch to avoid_version of module in sox 14.1.0
This patch was produced in F-8 gendiff command. It can be applyed in Rawhide (F-10) by using %define _default_patch_fuzz 2 On top of the spec file
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
--- Comment #11 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-08-07 11:37:07 EDT --- For the spec file side, there are some problems I will try to address them soon so we can get rid of the merge review for sox.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
--- Comment #12 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) kwizart@gmail.com 2008-10-20 19:30:16 EDT --- The current sox in Rawhide in broken (but should works) http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2076270&gro... This is reported by the mlt developer on the mlt review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459979 Please note that sox-devel in F-9 is (this time) completely broken. (which the current bug was meant to address). Do you have any tough to the "Patch to avoid_version of module in sox 14.1.0" which is now a backport ?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lnykryn@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lnykryn@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
--- Comment #13 from Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com 2011-08-31 10:12:58 EDT --- Checked git version: f8419589a083775a5c3d481237dcc5e8ccd9ddab sox-14.3.2-1
YES source files match upstream YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines. YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently YES dist tag is present INFO clean section and buildroot present clean section is not necessary any more and buildroot is ignored - they should be removed YES license field matches the actual license YES license is open source-compatible NO license text included in package there is mention in COPYING file, that licences are in the files LICENSE.GPL and LICENSE.LGPL, but both are missing in package YES latest version is being packaged YES BuildRequires are proper YES compiler flags are appropriate YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64) YES debuginfo package looks complete NO rpmlint is silent sox.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXchange -> exchange, exchanges, exchanged sox.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US eXchange -> exchange, exchanges, exchanged these two are OK sox.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsox.so.1.0.0 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 sox-debuginfo.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sox-14.3.2/src/ladspa.h 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings YES final provides and requires look sane N/A %check is present and all tests pass YES no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths YES owns the directories it creates YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't YES no duplicates in %files YES scriptlets must be sane YES code, not content N/A large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage YES %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package YES no headers YES no pkgconfig files YES no libtool .la droppings YES not a GUI app
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |limburgher@gmail.com
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-03 11:00:27 EDT --- Lukas, if you're still working on this, please set the review-flag to ? and status to ASSIGNED. If not, I can take over. Thanks!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226425
Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #15 from Lukáš Nykrýn lnykryn@redhat.com 2012-04-04 05:20:38 EDT --- Thank you for notification, I forget to set them. The main issue here is still missing license text.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org