http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742 Thibault North <tnorth(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Thibault North <tnorth(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2011-05-09 22:48:49 --- I'll review that one. -- 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=1742 Thibault North <tnorth(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|3 |4 --- Comment #2 from Thibault North <tnorth(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2011-05-10 17:03:24 --- rpmlint output: [tnorth@grouchy ~]$ rpmlint SRPMS/vo-aacenc-0.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm RPMS/x86_64/vo-aacenc-0.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm RPMS/x86_64/vo-aacenc-devel-0.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm RPMS/x86_64/vo-aacenc-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm vo-aacenc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code vo-aacenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex, code vo-aacenc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code vo-aacenc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex, code vo-aacenc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://opencore-amr.sourceforge.net/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden vo-aacenc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation vo-aacenc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://opencore-amr.sourceforge.net/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. (urls are okay, redirection breaks the rpmlint test) # MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [OK] # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [OK] # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK] # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [OK] # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [OK rpmfusion] # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.[OK] # 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 must be included in %doc.[OK (NOTICE contains the licence of COPYING)] # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK] # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK] # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [OK] # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [OK] # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [NA] # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; [inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [OK] # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] [NA] # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK] # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [OK] # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [NA] # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.[OK] # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] [OK] # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [OK] # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [OK] # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK] # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [NA] # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [OK] # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [OK] # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [OK] # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[OK] # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [NA] # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [OK] # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] Therefore, the package is 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. You are the assignee for the bug.

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742 Prabin Kumar Datta <linux.n.pkd(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|4 |33 -- 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=1742 --- Comment #5 from Prabin Kumar Datta <linux.n.pkd(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-05-10 22:53:55 --- Sorry for again updating this. But this is request from a friend to add F-14 under branch. Small change: Package CVS request ====================== Package Name: vo-aacenc Short Description: VisualOn AAC encoder library Owners: prabindatta Branches: devel F-14 F-15 F-16 EL-6 InitialCC: ---------------------- License tag: free -- 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=1742 Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kevin.kofler(a)chello.at Blocks|4, 33 |3 --- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2011-06-04 20:04:19 --- Are we sure this package is actually legal to ship under the license it claims to be under? http://spectralhole.blogspot.com/2010/12/androids-stagefright-aac-encoder... If the above blog post is true, this package contains non-Free code derived from the ISO AAC reference implementation just like FAAC does. Bumping out of accepted because of the legal issues. If the above analysis is true, the package is entirely undistributable in its current state and needs to go to nonfree if its license headers get fixed. -- 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=1742 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at&gt; 2011-06-05 00:30:00 --- See also: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=88183&pid=752... http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=16431 (Google's response there shows that Google didn't check the legal status as claimed by Martin Storsjö, they're deferring all queries to VisualOn.) -- 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=1742 --- Comment #11 from Prabin Kumar Datta <linux.n.pkd(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-06-09 18:38:50 --- Hi! Kevin Kofler, After reading your question I was confused since these are legal issues. So, I asked Upstream about this. Here goes the Upstream's answers of all your questions: Yes, it's true, it is derived from the 3GPP reference implementation - nobody denies that. Except that in this case, VisualOn claims, by releasing the code under the license they have done, that they have the right to doing it. You can only know that by asking 3GPP and VisualOn. The same goes here, you need to ask 3GPP. That's the most authoritive answer you will get, unless you ask VisualOn yourself. I have not done any further research myself - I only redistribute code under the license that I have got it from Google/VisualOn. You can't really get any further by discussing this issue back and forth between people that haven't checked the issue and that aren't lawyers. Either you trust that VisualOn has done things right, or you ask them to provide the necessary documents showing that everything is right. Yes, the same goes for them, too, except that you need to ask PacketVideo instead of VisualOn, for opencore-amr. -- 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=1742 --- Comment #13 from Prabin Kumar Datta <linux.n.pkd(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-06-27 19:04:32 --- I have send a mail to info(a)visualon.com asking about the legal issue with a link to this package review page. -- 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=1742 --- Comment #15 from Prabin Kumar Datta <linux.n.pkd(a)gmail.com&gt; 2011-10-09 00:22:10 --- Till now I didn't get any response. -- 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=1742 rc040203(a)freenet.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203(a)freenet.de --- Comment #22 from rc040203(a)freenet.de --- (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #21) - MUSTFIX: Building is non-verbose Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure - /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/vo-aacenc.pc seems broken to me. It uses includedir=/usr/include, but the headers below /usr/include/vo-aacenc are expecting to find vo-aacenc's headers under /usr/include/vo-aacenc: e.g. /usr/include/vo-aacenc/voAMRWB.h:#include "voAudio.h" i.e. they expect -I/usr/include/vo-aacenc and not -I/usr/include. - Consider to remove the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" from %install It's not needed anymore unless you plan to build this package for really ancient rhels. - Consider to remove the "Group" tags. They aren't used for anything in Fedora. -- 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=1742 --- Comment #24 from Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to rc040203 from comment #22) Fixed in 0.1.3-2 Right, vo-amrwbenc does the same thing, the users expect to need to do: #include <vo-amrwbenc/enc_if.h> I just tried building gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld with vo-aacenc support enabled and that works fine. Fixed in 0.1.3-2 Fixed in 0.1.3-2 Here is 0.1.3-2 : * Sat Sep 17 2016 Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede(a)gmail.com&gt; - 0.1.3-2 - Pass --disable-silent-rules to %%configure - Drop obsolete Group tags, rm -rf %%{buildroot} - Use %%make_install http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/vo-aacenc.spec http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/vo-aacenc-0.1.3-2.fc26.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.