https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #2 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-01 15:46:39 CET --- Whoops... I decided to manually install the one file rather than use "make install" and didn't even think about the library not getting the rpath stripped. Good catch. I'll have that corrected soon. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |leamas.alec(a)gmail.com --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-21 23:11:15 CET --- I'll make this review -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #6 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 01:11:15 CET --- Hmm... Honestly I didn't look into it too much because this is a released Fedora package. All I'm doing is building with mp3 support enabled to get the additional plugin library. This means the Fedora package needs to be fixed. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 03:43:01 CET --- (In reply to comment #7) The License: tag says LGPL 2.1 and GPL 2.0; sox.c seems to be GPL, sndio.c some kind of MIT (which can covered by any of the other, I guess). But perhaps those are not used in this particular plugin? Seems reasonable, I presume the code isn't present anyway. Basically, the package is broken. It should be possible to de-select dlc10 using configure, but it isn't. And autoreconf/automake doesnt work, too old configure.ac. Sigh -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #10 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 11:48:30 CET --- Created attachment 833 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=833 Re-enable automake; autoconf -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #12 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 11:50:04 CET --- Created attachment 835 --> https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/attachment.cgi?id=835 Adding support for configure --without-lpc10 -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #14 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 14:48:36 CET --- Wow, thanks for all the help. I was working towards something similar but I'm much more comfortable with cmake than autotools. Interestingly enough there does appear to be some basic cmake config files in the source but they're not nearly as mature. Should I just use the last patch or are they cumulative? -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #16 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 14:57:31 CET --- (In reply to comment #14) Interesting, I have some cmake I need help with... They are cumulative -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #18 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 15:30:56 CET --- (In reply to comment #17) Isn't it so that it's anyway the best option for this specific package which just contains mp3? The discussion is really about the main package?! It's at least my understanding. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #20 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 15:52:53 CET --- (In reply to comment #19) My idea was to apply the patches and then run automake; autoconf. The resulting configure + support files is what goes into the package, possibly after further patching of configure. However, patches in both configure.ac and configure is not really a nice way of doing it, the proper way is to patch configure.ac and Makefile.am. The changes should be similar for those for lpc10. Havn't really the time now, but will be back in a few hours. BTW, I have no other upcoming surprises, I'm basically waiting for new links. With this said, I'll try to help with what I can if needed. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #22 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 16:01:12 CET --- autoreconf -fi -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #24 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-22 20:08:43 CET --- Of course, thats the simple solution. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #26 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-23 19:13:08 CET --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. ==== Generic ==== [!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. No license break-down (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Lice...). A simple comment like below shoould do # sox.c is GPLv2, all other is LGPL2.1 [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. Basically we have a bundling exception. We need to reference the discussion in a comment adjacent to the Provides:, a line like: #http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2012-March/012081.html [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: MUST If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/mk/tmp/sox/sox-14.3.2.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : e9d35cf3b0f8878596e0b7c49f9e8302 MD5SUM upstream package : e9d35cf3b0f8878596e0b7c49f9e8302 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: - Fix comment referencing the email discussion which is the bundling exception. - License break-down. - Inform upstream about the bad fsf address in ladspa.h rpmlint (spelling junk filtered) sox-plugins-freeworld-debuginfo.i686: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/src/debug/sox-14.3.2/src/ladspa.h sox-plugins-freeworld.src:32: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(lpc10) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpm -q --provides sox-plugins-freeworld libsox_fmt_mp3.so()(64bit) sox-plugins-freeworld = 14.3.2-1.fc15 sox-plugins-freeworld(x86-64) = 14.3.2-1.fc15 $ rpm -q --requires sox-plugins-freeworld /sbin/ldconfig libgomp.so.1()(64bit) libgsm.so.1()(64bit) libid3tag.so.0()(64bit) libltdl.so.7()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libmad.so.0()(64bit) libmp3lame.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libsox.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) sox(x86-64) -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #28 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-23 19:35:37 CET --- *** Approved End of bumpy road -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 --- Comment #30 from Richard <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com&gt; 2012-03-23 20:05:59 CET --- (In reply to comment #29) I figured I'd give you a little time to catch that :) Thanks for the review and I'll have 2206 updated in the next day or two. -- Configure bugmail: https://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.

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2205 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|33 | -- Configure bugmail: https://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.