HandBrake / private libraries

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Tuesday, 31 March 2009 at 00:33, Bernard Johnson wrote:
> I'd like to submit a package for HandBrake (http://handbrake.fr).  I 
> have a package that compiles well, but uses private libraries.  One 
> reason that it does this is to patch in features or patch out bugs not 
> released in upstream yet.
> 
> HandBrake originally used these private libraries:
> 
> a52dec-0.7.4.tar.gz + A52_DOLBY patch
> faac-1.26.tar.gz
> faad2-2.6.1.tar.gz
> ffmpeg-r15462.tar.gz, precursor to 0.5 + several patches
> lame-3.98.tar.gz
> libdca-r81-strapped.tar.gz + additional ABI changes
> libdvdread-0.9.7.tar.gz
> libmkv-0.6.3.tar.gz
> libmp4v2-r45.tar.gz
> libogg-1.1.3.tar.gz
> libsamplerate-0.1.4.tar.gz
> libtheora-1.0.tar.gz
> libvorbis-aotuv_b5.tar.gz
> mpeg2dec-0.5.1.tar.gz + patch
> x264-r1028-83baa7f.tar.gz + several patches
> xvidcore-1.1.3.tar.gz + fdct patch
> 
> 
> In some cases, I was able to just remove the private library, and in 
> other cases I was able to verify upstream had integrated the patches and 
> replace with a newer version.  Once instance required patching out minor 
> functionality from HandBrake.  In a few cases, I dropped the private 
> library and it's patch hoping that it would not impact the quality of 
> the product.  I've even had one success with a downrev.  One library has 
> been submitted to Fedora.
> 
> I'm still left with these five private libraries that seem to be 
> considerably different from upstream (either in snapshot or patches). 
> I'm afraid that removing these actually will impact functionality or 
> stability:
> 
> a52dec-0.7.4.tar.gz + A52_DOLBY patch

Have you tried getting that patch accepted in a52dec upstream?

> ffmpeg-r15462.tar.gz, precursor to 0.5 + several patches

I might be able to help here. 0.5 is in devel and I'm planning to get
it into F-10 eventually. What are the patches for?

> libdca-r81-strapped.tar.gz + additional ABI changes

What changes?

> libmp4v2-r45.tar.gz

Is this different from what we're shipping?

> x264-r1028-83baa7f.tar.gz + several patches

What are the patches for?

> So my question - before submitting a RPM for review:  How aggressive 
> should I be in removing private libraries?  Should I remove them at the 
> expense of functionality?  Or just as many as I can that allows the 
> product to be fully functional?

Ideally they should all be removed. Some of the packages currently
in RPM Fusion also suffer from the same problem:
http://rpmfusion.org/BundledLibraries

I am reluctant to allow more of these.

Regards,
R.

-- 
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
        -- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"