Yeah, I looked into this recently. Lame was previously requested for EPEL8: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1760961 The bug closed because it is already part of rhel8: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/20776 Of course, this is only partially true. Lame-libs and lame-devel are part of rhel8, but the binary package is not. I'm tempted to file a bug with redhat and make a stink about this, but I doubt it would make a difference. In the end, I'll trust what Nicolas says is true, that mythtv doesn't need the binary package anyway. Thanks, Andy No Trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. ________________________________ From: Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 11:19 AM To: RPM Fusion developers discussion list <rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org&gt; Cc: mythtv-owner(a)rpmfusion.org <mythtv-owner(a)rpmfusion.org&gt; Subject: Re: [mythtv] Update to latest fixes/31 Don't require lame binary on el8 Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 18:06, Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; a écrit : No we can't (at least not easily). As the lame package is in RHEL but only the libs- and (devel) are distributed. So we can't have it in EPEL easily. Also having a lame binary is totally spurious. As I've written in the commit message, mythtv only uses the lame "libraries" and not the binary. We could still enforce the binary in fedora for more certainty, specially with plugins expectation. But there is no need to enforce when it's not needed. Thanks _______________________________________________ rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers(a)lists.rpmfusion.org To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-leave(a)lists.rpmfusion.org