http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 --- Comment #2 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)hhs.nl&gt; 2009-04-09 01:24:39 --- (In reply to comment #1) --disable static disables the building of a static (.a) file, not the building of so called libtool archives. Because the mimic compression algorithm most likely is patented. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 --- Comment #4 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola(a)iki.fi&gt; 2009-05-21 11:17:11 --- (In reply to comment #2) Still, I think it's best to get this decided over at @RH. Create a RR at the Fedora BZ and lift FE-LEGAL due to the patent concern. If there is some patent concern the package comes here, if not, then in Fedora. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |opensource(a)till.name --- Comment #6 from Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name&gt; 2009-08-06 11:29:50 --- If I build it on F10, install it and run rpmlint, I get: $ rpmlint libmimic libmimic.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libmimic.so.0.0.1 g_free libmimic.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libmimic.so.0.0.1 g_malloc libmimic.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libmimic.so.0.0.1 log libmimic.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libmimic.so.0.0.1 g_malloc0 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. $ rpmlint -I undefined-non-weak-symbol undefined-non-weak-symbol: The binary contains undefined non-weak symbols. This may indicate improper linkage; check that the binary has been linked as expected. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |musuruan(a)gmail.com Blocks|2 |3 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 --- Comment #9 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-08-07 10:18:17 --- If I omit from make libmimic_la_LIBADD="-lglib -lm" I can compile successfully and rpmlint show no problem under F10/x86_64. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #11 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-08-07 11:38:27 --- OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - License (ASL 2.0) OK - License field in spec matches see below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. see below - Sources match upstream md5sum: NA - Package needs ExcludeArch OK - BuildRequires correct NA - Spec handles locales/find_lang NA - Package is relocatable and has a reason to be. OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK, RPM Fusion - Package is code or permissible content. NA - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Headers/static libs in -devel subpackage. OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun NA - .pc files in -devel subpackage/requires pkgconfig OK - .so files in -devel subpackage. OK - -devel package Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK - .la files are removed. NA - Package is a GUI app and has a .desktop file OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. (F11/x84_64) OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. opencore-amr-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation OK - final provides and requires are sane: opencore-amr-0.1.1-1.fc10.src.rpm = rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 opencore-amr-0.1.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm libopencore-amrnb.so.0()(64bit) libopencore-amrwb.so.0()(64bit) opencore-amr = 0.1.1-1.fc10 opencore-amr(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc10 = /sbin/ldconfig /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libopencore-amrnb.so.0()(64bit) libopencore-amrwb.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) opencore-amr-debuginfo-0.1.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm opencore-amr-debuginfo = 0.1.1-1.fc10 opencore-amr-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc10 = rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 opencore-amr-devel-0.1.1-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm opencore-amr-devel = 0.1.1-1.fc10 opencore-amr-devel(x86-64) = 0.1.1-1.fc10 = libopencore-amrnb.so.0()(64bit) libopencore-amrwb.so.0()(64bit) opencore-amr = 0.1.1-1.fc10 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. (fedora-11-x86_64) see below - Should function as described. OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have subpackages require base package with fully versioned depend. OK - Should have dist tag see below - Should package latest version Issues: 1. The source package does not include the text of the license, you should contact upstream and encourage them to correct this mistake. 2. I couldn't check if sources matches upstream because they are no longer available. I couldn't even tell if you packaged the latest version. I have to trust you. 3. How can I test this library? Is there any program that can already use it? These issues are not mandatory. APPROVED! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 --- Comment #13 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-08-07 11:45:53 --- (In reply to comment #10) Yes, now it BR glib**2**-devel. BR glib-devel fixes this. Please report this problem upstream. You are perfectly right. My mistake. Therefore, Hans, just correct the BR and the package will be approved. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #15 from Andrea Musuruane <musuruan(a)gmail.com&gt; 2009-08-07 15:28:47 --- Looks good! APPROVED! -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=487 Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | --- Comment #17 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info&gt; 2009-08-08 19:10:05 --- done -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.