https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4700

--- Comment #4 from Nicolas Chauvet <kwiz...@gmail.com> ---
(In reply to Christian Dannie Storgaard from comment #2)
...
> I'm currently waiting on a reply from Bitwig regarding their redistribution
> terms/license, which is why there's no SRPM yet.
> If redistribution of their original DEB package is not permissible, would it
> still be possible to distribute this package in some other form?

You can use the lpf framework to do so. This would avoid distribute the content
and will (ask user to) fetch the original software before the package will be
built locally.

Is there any reason why you really need the ubuntu ffmpeg libraries and it
cannot use ours ? (in f28+ there is a compat-ffmpeg28 package that use the same
SONAME, this package could eventually be backported on older releases).

That been said, it seems very difficult to maintain a package that was not
created with portability in mind.
Maybe the best way forward would be to use a flatpak, but I'm not even sure if
the pre-compiled runtime will fit for this application.

That been said, the minimal to introduce this as a binary package is to have an
explicit ack that the softare can be redistributed.

BTW, usually to package binary software you need to use:
%global        debug_package %{nil}
%global        __strip /bin/true

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.
_______________________________________________
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

Reply via email to