6:06 p.m.
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
Summary: Review request: moc - Music on Console
Product: Package Reviews
Version: Current
Platform: All
URL: http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/
OS/Version: GNU/Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P5
Component: Review Request
AssignedTo: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
ReportedBy: rayllu(a)yahoo.com
CC: rpmfusion-package-review(a)rpmfusion.org
Blocks: 2,30
Estimated Hours: 0.0
http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/moc-2.4.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/moc.spec
Description: MOC (music on console) is a console audio player for LINUX/UNIX.
This package is a modified version of the Fedora packages linked to from here:
http://moc.daper.net/download
MOC includes MP3 playback capabilities, which is why it's not eligible for the
Fedora repositories. Like the 2.4.0 i386 packages, I could split the decoder
plugins up and submit the MOC core to Fedora and the decoder plugins to RPM
Fusion (though I'm not clear on exactly what functionality is and isn't
allowed). Also to note is this review request in Fedora:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=490210
The patch that I include allows the FFmpeg decoder plugin to build when
ffmpeg-devel is installed, but it seems a bit hackish.
$ rpmlint SRPMS/moc-2.4.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/moc-2.4.4-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
However, I should note that the debug package gets:
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/moc-debuginfo-2.4.4-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
moc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/moc-2.4.4/libltdl/.libs
moc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/usr/src/debug/moc-2.4.4/libltdl/.libs
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
I am seeking a sponsor since this is my first package.
--
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.
3:55 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #1 from Manuel Wolfshant <wolfy(a)fedoraproject.org> 2009-08-29 17:55:52
---
Unfortunately I think that you cannot use "moc" as a name for this application
because qt uses the same name for ages for its meta-object compiler (
http://qt.nokia.com/doc/4.0/moc.html )
Could you please look for a longer (and maybe more explicit ) name ? I guess it
would also be a good idea to explain this problem to the author of the project
and coordinate the search with him.
--
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.
9:03 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #2 from Raymond Lu <rayllu(a)yahoo.com> 2009-08-29 23:03:18 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Unfortunately I think that you cannot use "moc" as a name
for this application
because qt uses the same name for ages for its meta-object compiler (
http://qt.nokia.com/doc/4.0/moc.html )
Could you please look for a longer (and maybe more explicit ) name ? I guess it
would also be a good idea to explain this problem to the author of the project
and coordinate the search with him.
As stated in the Fedora review request that I linked, the upstream has renamed
the binary to mocp and there is currently no package named moc, so there
shouldn't be an issue.
"The binary file is called
mocp due to conflict with other program on many
systems."
"yum provides \*/moc" shows that moc is provided by qt-devel-4.5.2 and
qt3-devel-3.3.8b.
--
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.
2:26 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #3 from Raymond Lu <rayllu(a)yahoo.com> 2009-09-01 04:26:47 ---
Actually, I just discovered a bug that was most likely introduced by my
patch/ugly hack in the ffmpeg decoder plugin. I have a .aac file that crashes
MOC. I'll work on resolving this issue.
In the meantime, I'm still looking for a sponsor.
--
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.
6 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #4 from Raymond Lu <rayllu(a)yahoo.com> 2009-09-03 20:00:34 ---
Fixed!
http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/moc.spec
http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/moc-2.5.0-0.1.svn2169.fc11.src.rpm
I've updated the spec file and uploaded a new SRPM. The sources now come from
SVN r2169 instead of 2.4.4 stable.
The crash itself was fixed in r2144:
Fix compatibility with never ffmpeg: new avcodec_decode_audio2()
My patch is no longer needed.
I've also compiled in AAC support with faad2.
Still looking for a sponsor.
--
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.
9:02 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
Joel Andres Granados <joel.granados(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |joel.granados(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Joel Andres Granados <joel.granados(a)gmail.com> 2009-09-08
23:02:02 ---
Raymond Lu:
I'm also a big fan of moc. I have some spec and srpms of my own. I actully
think that organizing moc in subpackages is much better that what you propose.
http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc.spec
http://jgranado.fedorapeople.org/packages/moc/moc-2.5.0-1.20090602svn2151...
Tell me what you think. I have not really read the guide lines for rpm fusion.
Will do that in a sec. But those files work very well for me.
--
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.
8 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #6 from Raymond Lu <rayllu(a)yahoo.com> 2009-09-09 22:00:06 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
I'm also a big fan of moc. I have some spec and srpms of my own.
I actully
think that organizing moc in subpackages is much better that what you propose.
[snip]
Tell me what you think. I have not really read the guide lines for
rpm fusion.
Will do that in a sec. But those files work very well for me.
I'm not really convinced that separating each decoder plugin into a separate
package is a good idea. Each package only contains a single binary so it seems
a bit too fragmented.
The only real advantage would be including the moc core and plugins with an
acceptable license in the Fedora repositories and the rest in RPMFusion.
--
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.
8:40 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #7 from Joel Andres Granados <joel.granados(a)gmail.com> 2009-09-09
22:40:46 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
(In reply to comment #5)
....
I'm not really convinced that separating each decoder plugin into
a separate
package is a good idea. Each package only contains a single binary so it seems
Which is not a reason not to put each on in a separate package. There are
packages that only contain a binary, like firmware packages.
a bit too fragmented.
True. It is fragmented but thats the point. Read my next comment.
The only real advantage would be including the moc core and plugins with an
acceptable license in the Fedora repositories and the rest in RPMFusion.
No, this is not the only advantage. The plugin idea is for the user to
add/remove any plugin as he/she sees fit. This is not possible through yum/rpm
if you put everything in an rpm. I personally want the all, but someone else
might decide not to install them all (for whatever reason). IMO, giving this
options is very important.
--
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.
8:49 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #8 from Rex Dieter <rdieter(a)math.unl.edu> 2009-09-09 22:49:02 ---
There's obviously a balance to be found. Split packages should have good
reasons to justify the additional complexity, both for package maintainers and
end-users.
--
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.
8:25 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #9 from Raymond Lu <rayllu(a)yahoo.com> 2009-09-10 22:25:04 ---
Either way, do you intend to submit the compatible pieces to Fedora and the
others to RPMFusion?
--
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.
2:37 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #10 from Yuri Timofeev <tim4dev(a)gmail.com> 2009-10-28 15:37:49 ---
http://webacula.sourceforge.net/files/moc.spec
http://webacula.sourceforge.net/files/moc-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc10.src.rpm
I think my spec is better to be follow the requirements of Fedora ;)
However, I did not cope with this :
$ rpmlint -i moc-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc10.i386.rpm
moc.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/mocp
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint -i moc-flac-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc10.i386.rpm
moc-flac.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/moc/decoder_plugins/libflac_decoder.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
and so on.
--
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.
11:59 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |leigh123linux@fedoraproject.
| |org
--- Comment #11 from leigh scott <leigh123linux(a)fedoraproject.org> 2009-10-29
12:59:45 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
http://webacula.sourceforge.net/files/moc.spec
http://webacula.sourceforge.net/files/moc-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc10.src.rpm
I think my spec is better to be follow the requirements of Fedora ;)
However, I did not cope with this :
$ rpmlint -i moc-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc10.i386.rpm
moc.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/mocp
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint -i moc-flac-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc10.i386.rpm
moc-flac.i386: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib/moc/decoder_plugins/libflac_decoder.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
and so on.
You have a missing Build requirement, db4-devel is needed.
checking for db.h... no
configure: no Berkeley DB version 4 or higher found
configure: error: BerkeleyDB (libdb) not found
The unstripped-binary-or-object error is due to your build environment not
being complete, I believe you are missing the redhat macros provided by
redhat-rpm-config.
Does you build generate a debug package? (it should)
Wrote:
/home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/moc-debuginfo-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc12.x86_64.rpm
$ rpmlint
/home/leigh/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/moc-flac-2.5.0-0.1.alpha4.fc12.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
--
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.
4:41 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |opensource(a)till.name
URL|http://raylu.no-ip.org/moc/ |http://moc.daper.net/
--- Comment #12 from Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> 2010-05-15 18:41:10 ---
The conditional build support from RPM is not properly used making the SPEC
harder to read. I documented the usage once here:
http://www.rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/ConditionalBuilds
Also a newer release is available.
--
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.
2:02 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #13 from Raymond Lu <rayllu(a)yahoo.com> 2010-05-23 04:02:12 ---
I'm no longer interested in MOC (switched to cmus) and the others with specs
seem to have lost interest too. I guess this is just another failed attempt at
getting moc into rpmfusion, unless Till is interested in building one himself?
--
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.
10:57 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #14 from Yuri Timofeev <tim4dev(a)gmail.com> 2010-11-06 11:57:57 ---
Now MOC - music on console available in FC14 repo
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/tim4dev/moc/
--
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.
3:36 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #15 from Jean-Francois Saucier <jsaucier(a)gmail.com> 2011-01-13 16:36:00
---
The last rpms from Yuri work fine and the spec file look clean.
Can this package finally be included in RPM Fusion?
--
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.
5:03 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #16 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com> 2011-01-13 18:03:36
---
(In reply to comment #14)
Now MOC - music on console available in FC14 repo
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/tim4dev/moc/
Hi Yuri,
Do you want to takeover this review request from Raymond? And are you already a
Fedora and/or
RPM Fusion packager?
Regards,
Hans
--
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.
2:31 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #17 from Yuri Timofeev <tim4dev(a)gmail.com> 2011-01-17 15:31:52 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Do you want to takeover this review request from Raymond?
In Jan 2011, Mikhail Kulemin <mihkulemin[]gmail[]com> write to me
that he has a plan to push "moc" package to upstream of Fedora.
And are you already a Fedora and/or RPM Fusion packager?
Yes, Fedora packager.
Not Rpm fusion packager.
--
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.
5:54 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 789] Review request: moc - Music on Console
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=789
--- Comment #18 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com> 2011-04-27 19:54:01
---
Hi,
So what is the status of this, has this been submitted to Fedora? If not is
someone interested in moving forward with getting this into rpmfusion and
actively maintaining it there ?
Regards,
Hans
--
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.
4741
days inactive
5348
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
18 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
RPM Fusion Bugzilla