https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2736 Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Group|Package Reviews | CC Accessible|1 |0 Depends on| |2 Reporter|1 |0 Accessible| | -- 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=2736 --- Comment #2 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2013-05-23 05:39:05 CEST --- Debian thinks this is non-free. :-( http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=libfdk-aac&searchon=names&... http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694257#60 (As I understand it, the offending paragraph is exactly the one I found bizarrely worded too.) For what it's worth, it's definitely GPL-incompatible (both FFmpeg and Libav will refuse to use it without --enable-nonfree for that reason, see e.g. http://patches.libav.org/patch/24437/ for a discussion). -- 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=2736 --- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2013-06-26 23:41:22 CEST --- I agree with kevin, this should go into nonfree What would you suggest as a license name ? FDK-AAC License ? -- 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=2736 --- Comment #5 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2013-08-12 03:06:49 CEST --- SourceForge mostly doesn't enforce license compliance, neither compliance with the requirement in their TOS that the software uploaded to SourceForge be Open Source, nor that the actual license matches the one listed in the project summary. So you cannot trust that software is Free Software just because it is on SourceForge. -- 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=2736 --- Comment #7 from Sérgio Basto <sergio(a)serjux.com&gt; 2013-08-12 18:52:36 CEST --- (In reply to comment #6) because sourceforge only accept projects with open and free licenses . -- 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=2736 Eric Work <work.eric(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |work.eric(a)gmail.com --- Comment #9 from Eric Work <work.eric(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-04 10:18:16 CET --- Anything ever happen with this? The new SPEC files seems to have an updated license field as requested by the previous commenters. Given that this library can be used by FFMPEG and HandBrake to produce better quality AAC audio it would be nice to not have to build it locally each time. -- 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=2736 --- Comment #11 from Eric Work <work.eric(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-01-06 08:20:15 CET --- Even if ffmpeg is not built with fdk_acc enabled by default it will still make dependencies easier if ffmpeg is rebuilt locally with fdk_acc enabled. I have been compiling fdk_aac from source and then rebuilding ffmpeg from SRPM. This creates an issue when the new ffmpeg RPM is installed because it requires a shared library not registered in the RPM system. I've been getting around this problem using a fake provides package generated by a 3rd party script. I didn't have the time to create a proper RPM package like you have so I'm glad I found this review and that someone started the effort. So my main motivation for having this package available would be to simplify rebuilding ffmpeg. Also it could possibly be used with makemkv. I'd be happy to review the package but it will take some time as my time is limited right now and I haven't gone through the review request process in Fedora for a few years. -- 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=2736 Michael <michael.monreal+bugs(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michael.monreal+bugs@gmail. | |com --- Comment #13 from Michael <michael.monreal+bugs(a)gmail.com&gt; 2014-03-30 08:52:51 CEST --- I second this, it would be very helpful to just have this package in rpmfusion. Would it be possible to add optional support for this library to the ffmpeg spec? I currently add two lines to this spec to allow me to build using "rpmbuild -bb --clean --with fdkaac ...", if those two lines could me added to the official spec (in addition to providing the fdkaac and fdkaac-devel package), rebuilding would be become very easy. -- 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=2736 --- Comment #15 from Eric Work <work.eric(a)gmail.com&gt; 2015-06-23 05:15:36 CEST --- Ok... here is a review. Basically just two issues I see. #1 I think NOTICE should be tagged %license? #2 Minor update on Requires for the -devel package. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [!]: 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 %license. NOTE: Does this mean %license is used instead of %doc? [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 308 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ework/Downloads/fdk-aac/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Devel_Packages Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). NOTE: Nothing valid [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. -- 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=2736 Christopher Atherton <the8lack8ox(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |the8lack8ox(a)gmail.com --- Comment #17 from Christopher Atherton <the8lack8ox(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-01-12 03:26:11 CET --- FDK-AAC SPEC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qyngfb4zeqx22io/fdk-aac.spec?dl=0 FDK-AAC SRPM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x7jx5qlx8qge05f/fdk-aac-0.1.4-1.fc23.src.rpm?dl=0 FDKAAC (CLI frontend) SPEC: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vvajxq7yjyq9wz3/fdkaac.spec?dl=0 FDKAAC (CLI frontend) SRPM: https://www.dropbox.com/s/9t6fi7e0jx54u31/fdkaac-0.6.2-1.fc23.src.rpm?dl=0 I could not access Eric's work. Here are a couple specs I modified/cooked-up. It would be really great to get this in some repository. Linux doesn't offer much for AAC compression. I don't understand the license situation. Is it a question of free vs non-free? A decision on that seems to be the only thing holding this up... -- 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=2736 --- Comment #19 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwizart(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-01-13 12:04:56 CET --- (In reply to comment #18) And This is totally illegal as stated by FFmpeg, this is a violation of their GPL rights, Please read: "December 5th, 2015, The native FFmpeg AAC encoder is now stable!" on ffmpeg.org It will be better to the the full featured native ffmpeg aac encoder implementation. As a project, we cannot endorse such violation of the GPL. -- 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=2736 Christopher Atherton <the8lack8ox(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |3940 -- 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=2736 --- Comment #22 from Eric Work <work.eric(a)gmail.com&gt; 2016-01-13 20:01:52 CET --- (In reply to comment #19) I'm not sure I understand what is illegal about Negativo distributing an fdk-aac package and an ffmpeg package that links to the fdk-aac libraries dynamically. If you statically linked to a non-distributable library then you'd have problems. It's true that there could be some patent issues in certain countries and fdk-aac is not GPL, but this is also why you need to pass --non-free to configure to enable it. I think this is why it's discouraged. This is more an aside and regardless this is definitely in the nonfree section. Your second point about the native AAC encoder being stable is great news and probably removes the need for fdk-aac at all. I'm in agreement with everyone here that we should use the native AAC encoder rather than link fdk-acc to ffmpeg. If fdk-aac is packaged stand-alone in the nonfree section someone could always enable the conditional that's been fixed in the ffmpeg package to build fdk-aac support locally. -- 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.