https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522
--- Comment #98 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #97) > (In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #95) > ... > > Can you re-approve the bug again? > Once again. I would not approve this unless the package is named > fdk-aac-free to denote the incompleteness of the library (possibly with a > virtual provide fdk-aac). I see people make a big issue of this on this thread, but do you actually have a real world file that gives you problems? Or are you tilting at windmills here? > If that can be done, both fedora fdk-aac-free and rpmfusion fdk-aac-free > would use a normal packaging method. (and they would conflicts). > > For users, it would only be a matter to replace the former with the latter. Ok, so you want the package to be called -free at the end, but no changes to the .so file names etc., right? > But you need to provide a bug-free fdk-aac implementation. It's not at all > acceptable that have unfixable items on the fedora side that would only be > fixed by using the fully implemented version. What do you mean with a 'bug free' implementation? > Please also reminds that rpmfusion has version 1.6 since fc28 and I don't > see that would have updated the fedora counterpart in time. This is a > problem for us. > To me, it means there is a need for a new legal review for each library > update. The only reason the package didn't get updated is due to the quagmire of this bugreport. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
