[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Version|devel |rawhide [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-14 13:08 EST --- Maintainer is OK with the change as per previous conversation with him. Package Change Request == Package Name: pulseaudio New Branches: EL-5 Owners for new branch: lkundrak cvsextras commits for new branch: yes -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-04-14 15:36 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-30 13:36 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: pulseaudio Updated Fedora Owners: [EMAIL PROTECTED],[EMAIL PROTECTED] I am upstream of this package and Pierre agreed to co-maintain this package with me from now on. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-07-30 13:39 EST --- CVS done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 02:51 EST --- Ok, the CLA is now accepted. I've added myself to the cvsextras group, so feel free to approve that. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 07:42 EST --- OK, you are now sponsored. Import pulseaudio into cvs, and mark this as Resolved-NextRelease when done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 11:04 EST --- Note that we plan on replacing esound in FC7 with pulseaudio. pulseaudio is supposed to be some kind of drop-in replacement to esound. So for FC7 we need pulseaudio to co-exist without conflicting or removing esound, but FC7 we need to design a smooth upgrade path for both the sound server and packages that currently depend on it by name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 12:44 EST --- So it will be moved into core then? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 14:04 EST --- Does this current version co-exist with esound without causing conflicts? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-28 14:42 EST --- No direct conflicts no. Only one can have the local socket though of course. There aren't really any ways pulse can conflict with esound, apart from replacing esd with the esdcompat script. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-23 04:53 EST --- Hmmm ... the URLs in comment #48 still don't work for me, pulseaudio.spec seems to be the version from 2006-08-20 and pulseaudio-0.9.4-2.src.rpm doesn't exist Curiously http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/public.html seems to contain the latest pulseaudio.spec Am I the only one having these problems? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-23 05:02 EST --- I guess it was a bit late when I uploaded those. They should work now. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-23 05:37 EST --- Created an attachment (id=134695) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=134695action=view) Patch to spec to build separate jack package When I build pulseaudio, because of having jack-audio-connection-kit installed, the build complains about unpackaged modules: /usr/lib/pulse-0.9/modules/module-jack-sink.so /usr/lib/pulse-0.9/modules/module-jack-source.so Attached a patch to include these in a separate pulseaudio-module-jack package, if an optional --with jack build switch is used. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it or if there is a way to detect an optional dependency and use it automatically. If you have jack-audio-connection kit installed and build without --with jack the build will fail, so I'm sure there's a better way - any suggestions? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-23 07:18 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.4-3.src.rpm JACK should always be built, so this version has more or less your patch (just no if:s). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778, 177841 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-23 11:10 EST ---
Re: comment #48:
The %{?fedora} macro isn't defined in my rpm though, so I couldn't
include that part. Is it perhaps only present on the build system?
Yes, the buildsystem defines it, as well as a few others, like %{dist}. You
can similate that via:
rpmbuild --define fedora 5 -bb pulseaudio.spec
That said, package looks good, APPROVED. Now I have to figure out this
sponsorship thing. (:
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO|ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(drzeus- | |[EMAIL PROTECTED]) | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-22 16:14 EST --- 0. It was Toshio that did those additions. The Red Hat libtool was added to avoid getting a RPATH on x86_64. 1. I'm blisfully unaware to the the available macros. I'll get that into the next revision, thanks. :) 2. Yes and no, we'll have a look, package by package: pulseaudio-lib-glib2: This is for GLib 2 applications that want to easily integrate with the PulseAudio client lib. As such, they'll have a dependency on the .so file in this package and everything will be peachy. pulseaudio-lib-zeroconf: This is similar as it provides a shared object for automatically finding PulseAudio servers and connecting to them. It does, however, also contain a command line tool that might be of interest to the users. But as apt and yum can fetch based on knowing that tools name (pabrowse), users should be able to pull it in without much trouble. pulseaudio-module-alsa: Failure to have this package will result in error messages about failing to load modules, provided their configuration states that the ALSA modules should be loaded. As ALSA is the standard API, I suppose we could remove this subpackage. pulseaudio-module-lirc: Same result here. This module provides nothing as far as clients are concerned (it allows you to directly control the server via IR), so there will be an obvious error for those trying to use the function without having the package. pulseaudio-module-x11: This is more subtle from a user's point of view. This module provides some extra authentication features (allows you to set the security cookie as a X11 property). I am a strong proponent of keeping this subpackage though as X11 can be a big dependency. pulseaudio-module-zeroconf: This is a server-side feature and will therefore result in complaints about missing modules when trying to use it without the package. So I can accept removing the ALSA subpackage, but the others should stay. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-22 16:20 EST --- Fair reasoning. So, the conclusion is to (only) drop the module-alsa subpkg (to be subsumed into -lib?), and I think this should be good to go. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-22 16:49 EST ---
Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio.spec
SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.4-2.src.rpm
Remove the ALSA subpackage.
The %{?fedora} macro isn't defined in my rpm though, so I couldn't include that
part. Is it perhaps only present on the build system?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEEDINFO
Flag||needinfo?(drzeus-
||[EMAIL PROTECTED])
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 08:06 EST ---
0. Comment in specfile:
# configure --disable-static had no effect; delete manually.
FYI, this is most likely due to your using LIBTOOL=/usr/bin/libtool
No suggestion here, just an FYI. (:
1. SHOULD/COULD: You could use the %{fedora} macro (defined in Fedora's
buildsystem), to conditionalize this bit:
# FC5
BuildRequires: libXt-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel
# FC4 or earlier
# BuildRequires:xorg-x11-devel
into something like:
%if %{?fedora} 4
BuildRequires: libXt-devel, xorg-x11-proto-devel
%else
BuildRequires: xorg-x11-devel
%endif
But I'll leave the choice of doing this up to you (you're the one that'll have
to maintain it afterall).
2. Regarding split-out server/client libs/modules. Will pulseaudio apps link
with these (and automatically include them as dependancies)?
If yes and/or dependancies are handled automatically for end-users, end of
problem.
If no, how will users' get these extra dependancies installed on their machines
(other than doing so manually)?
Address this last 2 issues, and I'll APPROVE this (and sponsor you).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-21 14:09 EST --- URL in comment #43 should be http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.4-1.src.rpm (-1 not -2) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-20 06:45 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.4-2.src.rpm Update to 0.9.4 and the dependency fix included. I haven't touched the number of subpackages as I want some more comments on the current state. These are the current split out packages: pulseaudio-lib-glib2: Client side dependency on GLib 2.0. pulseaudio-lib-zeroconf: Client side dependency on Avahi. pulseaudio-module-alsa: Server side dependency on ALSA libs pulseaudio-module-lirc: Server side dependency on LIRC libs. pulseaudio-module-x11: Server side dependency on X11, SM and ICE libs. pulseaudio-module-zeroconf: Server side dependency on Avahi. Personally, I don't care for packages that pull in everything and the kitchen sink because of some optional components, hence all these sub-packages. I am open to input if the concensus is that some/all of these are excessive. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 03:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #40) (In reply to comment #39) MUSTFIX: lib-devel contains pkgconfig file(s), so it ought to: Requires: pkgconfig Hmm... is this to get the correct directory structure? Because a owner of .pc files has no need for the pkgconfig command (the users of the .pc files are the ones that need the command). A .pc file is useless without pkgconfig, hence packages providing .pc files should require pkgconfig. And even if you don't buy that argument, the directory that the .pc file is installed into is owned by the pkgconfig package, which is another reason why it must be required. Moreover, libpulse-mainloop-glib.pc in the pulseaudio-lib-devel package contains: Requires: libpulse glib-2.0 glib-2.0.pc is provided by glib2-devel so pulseaudio-lib-devel should have a dependency on glib2-devel. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-18 10:53 EST --- Thanks for Paul's helpful analysis, (in addition to MUSTFIX item from comment #39): 2. MUSTFIX, pulseaudio-lib-devel needs: Requires: glib2-devel Since you're upstream dev, it may be worth perusing pulseaudio's headers to see if dependancies on other pkgs exist as well (I'm betting not, but you never know). -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:22 EST --- I can try reviewing this... Pierre, do you have any notions/intentions to maintain more than just this in Fedora Extras? I ask mainly because as your first reviewer, I'll need to also sponsor you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 15:25 EST --- Duh, just checked all(most?) other bugs depending on this one, and they're mostly yours too. Nevermind the silly question. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-17 16:10 EST --- MUSTFIX: lib-devel contains pkgconfig file(s), so it ought to: Requires: pkgconfig Can you explain/justify the existence of *both* a pulseaudio-devel and a pulseaudio-libs-devel pkg? I'm also inclined to say that there's needless complexity splitting out separate packages for module-alsa, lib-glib2, lib-zeroconf subpkgs. These are pretty low-level, core libraries that will (should?!) be present on any audio-capable/desktop-config machine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-06 06:58 EST --- That would be nice. Unfortunately it isn't possible as we want to support multi-arch, which requires us to put it in lib[64] and let ld.so find it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-05 23:17 EST ---
Given that libpulsedsp.so is a preload hack library, I don't think it should be
in %{_libdir}, and thus in the default linker path. It belongs in a subdir.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-25 14:10 EST --- Thanks for explaining. If I understand correctly, if an ABI change occurs, pulseaudio will enhance the pulsedsp library to receive either the old or new ABI, convert the call properly based on some external information (config file, ENVVAR, etc), and then send it on to the daemon. If that's the pulseaudio team's plan for dealing with ABI changes, then I can't think of any other instances versioning would come in handy at the moment. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-24 14:48 EST --- (In reply to comment #30) It could be that neither matters but the reasoning is flawed. In LTSP thin client installations (where you need to have a networked audio server in order to get sound) it is common to set up the LD_PRELOAD variable to load the dsp redirecting library system wide. So the padsp script is never used in this case. Doesn't this result in disable prelinking system wide? I think the real question is whether the calls that libpulsedsp is overriding (AFAICT: _ioctl, _close, _open, _fopen, _open64, _fopen64, _fclose, _access ) will ever change their ABI. Yes, symbol versioning is something to worry about. LD_PRELOAD is a neat trick but I've learned the hard way that it's basically a bad idea for anything other than debugging. I'm not all that familiar with pulseaudio yet, but isn't there some other way to get similar functionality? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-24 15:16 EST ---
(In reply to comment #31)
(In reply to comment #30)
In LTSP thin client installations (where you need to have a networked audio
server in order to get sound) it is common to set up the LD_PRELOAD
variable
to load the dsp redirecting library system wide.
Doesn't this result in disable prelinking system wide?
I've never thought of that but it could. I'll mention this on the k12ltsp list
and see what response comes back.
LD_PRELOAD is a neat trick but I've learned the hard way that it's basically a
bad idea for anything other than debugging. I'm not all that familiar with
pulseaudio yet, but isn't there some other way to get similar functionality?
Monty mentioned on IRC that he's working on fusd (Device files from userspace.)
He thinks that will allow pulseaudio to create the device files rather than
having to load a library that overrides calls to /dev/dsp with calls to
pulseaudio instead. Without that I think all prior art is to use LD_PRELOAD in
this manner. (Although thin client is the only place I'm aware of them doing it
system-wide; most places use the {esd,arts,pa}dsp wrapper to target specific
applications.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 07:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #16) I had no problems building in rawhide, but rpmlint is very unhappy: Tons of rpath warnings: E: pulseaudio binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/pulse-0.9/modules/libprotocol-esound.so ['/usr/lib64/pulse-0.9/modules/', '/usr/lib64'] and 69 others. The usual libtool hack doesn't work. This is a libtool/gcc misfeature. I talked to Ralf Wildenhues about it, but he didn't have any way of solving it (short of bastardising libtool). It's just the way things are on multi-arch for now. This looks like a script but isn't executable: E: pulseaudio non-executable-script /etc/pulse/default.pa 0644 The hash bang is mostly there to show that it can be used that way. As it is located in /etc, I think we should keep the execute bit off. Some setuid bits: E: pulseaudio setuid-binary /usr/bin/pulseaudio root 04755 E: pulseaudio non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/pulseaudio 04755 which will need to be discussed to make sure we're not getting into any security issues. Sure. Pulse only uses its root privileges to change to realtime scheduling, then drops them. Access control is based on who is in the 'realtime' group. Some no-documentation warnings: W: pulseaudio-devel no-documentation W: pulseaudio-lib-glib no-documentation W: pulseaudio-lib-zeroconf no-documentation W: pulseaudio-module-alsa no-documentation W: pulseaudio-module-x11 no-documentation W: pulseaudio-module-zeroconf no-documentation W: pulseaudio-utils no-documentation which are probably OK but I'll have to check. The docs are in the other packages. This is problematic: E: pulseaudio-utils invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libpulsedsp.so libpulsedsp.so but unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. It's not a real lib, so it has no use for versioning. It's the active part of an LD_PRELOAD hack to provide OSS emulation. As such, the error is incorrect and the lib is just fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 12:43 EST --- License should be both GPL and LGPL. (See the LICENSE file for details) pkgconfig files won't do the right thing on x86_64. Will attach a patch for that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 12:44 EST --- Created an attachment (id=132822) -- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132822action=view) Patch to correct pkgconfig files for libdir on x86_64 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 17:43 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.3-1.src.rpm Updated with a new version. Also fixed the license and pc issue pointed out. (pc fix also committed upstream) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 19:37 EST --- * Should get rid of the static libraries as well. Comment #17: E: pulseaudio-utils invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libpulsedsp.so libpulsedsp.so but unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. It's not a real lib, so it has no use for versioning. It's the active part of an LD_PRELOAD hack to provide OSS emulation. As such, the error is incorrect and the lib is just fine. libesddsp and libartsdsp are versioned:: $ objdump -p /usr/lib64/libartsdsp.so /usr/lib64/libesddsp.so.0|grep SONAME SONAME libartsdsp.so.0 SONAME libesddsp.so.0 I don't know how these libraries do their tricks, but is there any improbable case when you might want to have it versioned? The kernel upgrades what it expects to receive on /dev/dsp and you want to provide both the older interface and newer interface to programs? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 19:44 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=132852)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=132852action=view)
patch spec to remove static libs and fix rpath breakage
Here's a spec patch for two of the issues. It removes static libraries and
fixes rpath. Note that some of the files in the modules directory,
%{_libdir}/pulse-0.9/modules, need to have an rpath to that directory because
they have dependencies on other shared objects in there. Before, they had a
second rpath set on /usr/lib64 which was wrong. Also, some of the modules do
not have dependencies on anything within that directory. Therefore, they
should have no rpath set. This patch should make all of that happy (and
rpmlint should no longer complain about rpaths.)
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 19:47 EST --- Why kill of the static libs? Although dynamic linking is preferred, I see no point in preventing those that want to do a static link. The versioning in lib*dsp is completely useless and can only be motivated by defeating warnings like those in rpmlint. The .so shouldn't be seen as a lib, more like a program. The reason it is a lib is because that's the way LD_PRELOAD works, not because you want the properties a shared library gives you. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 20:08 EST --- (In reply to comment #25) Why kill of the static libs? Although dynamic linking is preferred, I see no point in preventing those that want to do a static link. Policy http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-2302ec1e1f44202c9cc4bcce24cb711266557ad7 I don't know the full reasoning behind the policy (it would be nice if the guidelines came with a raionale document), but the obvious reason is easy enough to guess. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-21 20:17 EST --- Static libs are security hole. If I link my program against the static versions of a library and a vulnerability is later fixed in the library I will still be carrying around vulnerable code until I recompile against the newer version. With dynamic libs, only the library packager needs to be on the ball about finding security holes and making updates. The consumers of the library get the hole closed after they update the library. Versioning: Bear with me. I'm trying to imagine if there's any reason that versioning could be useful so we know we're not introducing broken behaviour. Since arts and esd both do it they either have thought of some corner case where it's useful or they're both broken. The latter is very likely (they're broken in many other ways) but we want to make sure we actually are smarter than our predecessors rather than falling into a problem that they avoided. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-20 20:12 EST --- I had no problems building in rawhide, but rpmlint is very unhappy: Tons of rpath warnings: E: pulseaudio binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/lib64/pulse-0.9/modules/libprotocol-esound.so ['/usr/lib64/pulse-0.9/modules/', '/usr/lib64'] and 69 others. The usual libtool hack doesn't work. This looks like a script but isn't executable: E: pulseaudio non-executable-script /etc/pulse/default.pa 0644 Some setuid bits: E: pulseaudio setuid-binary /usr/bin/pulseaudio root 04755 E: pulseaudio non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/pulseaudio 04755 which will need to be discussed to make sure we're not getting into any security issues. Some no-documentation warnings: W: pulseaudio-devel no-documentation W: pulseaudio-lib-glib no-documentation W: pulseaudio-lib-zeroconf no-documentation W: pulseaudio-module-alsa no-documentation W: pulseaudio-module-x11 no-documentation W: pulseaudio-module-zeroconf no-documentation W: pulseaudio-utils no-documentation which are probably OK but I'll have to check. This is problematic: E: pulseaudio-utils invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libpulsedsp.so libpulsedsp.so but unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-18 20:08 EST --- When compiling the src.rpm on current Development I get the following error: gcc -shared .libs/libpulsecore_la-channelmap.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-error.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-mainloop.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-mainloop-api.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-mainloop-signal.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sample.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-timeval.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-utf8.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-util.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-volume.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-xmalloc.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-autoload.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-cli-command.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-cli-text.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-client.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-conf-parser.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-core.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-core-scache.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-core-subscribe.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-core-util.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-dynarray.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-g711.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-hashmap.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-idxset.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-log.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-mcalign.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-memblock.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-memblockq.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-memchunk.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-modargs.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-modinfo.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-module.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-namereg.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-pid.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-pipe.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-play-memchunk.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-poll.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-props.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-queue.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-random.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-resampler.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sample-util.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sconv.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sconv-s16be.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sconv-s16le.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sink .o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sink-input.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sioman.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sound-file.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-sound-file-stream.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-source.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-source-output.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-strbuf.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-tokenizer.o .libs/libpulsecore_la-core-error.o /usr/lib/libltdl.so -lsamplerate -lsndfile -loil-0.3 -lcap -ldl -lm -pthread -Wl,-soname -Wl,libpulsecore.so.0 -o .libs/libpulsecore.so.0.0.1 /usr/lib/libltdl.so: could not read symbols: File in wrong format collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [libpulsecore.la] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2/src' make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.26234 (%build) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-17 10:14 EST --- There is a plan to introduce a new set of icons which follow the freedesktop icon spec in FC6. Details at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/BluecurveAndBeyond -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-11 03:24 EST --- Actually you must be right regarding pabrowse :) Something else I noticed on rawhide, I don't get the nice icons I can see on the screenshot for the GUI interfaces in the default gnome fedora theme. IE, I see a red cross in the trayicon when launching padevchooser instead of the speaker from the main site's screenshot. Likewise no icon in Applications ! Sound Video Menu for Pulseaudio Device Chooser. I must be missing something but what? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 01:52 EST --- I'm afraid I haven't done any reviews as of yet as I hadn't gotten that deeply involved in the Extras project until now. I just figured that I, as one of the main developers of PulseAudio, could give these packages the attention they need. :) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 11:10 EST --- Building on Rawhide works fine but does not work on FC5 with the following error: [EMAIL PROTECTED] pkgconfig]$ sudo ldconfig [...] gcc -shared .libs/libpulse_browse_la-browser.o -Wl,--rpath - Wl,/home/emoret/rpmbuild/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2/src/.libs ./.libs/libpulse.so - lhowl -lcap -ldl -lm -pthread -m32 -march=i386 -mtune=generic -Wl,-soname - Wl,libpulse-browse.so.0 -o .libs/libpulse-browse.so.0.0.0 /usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lhowl collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [libpulse-browse.la] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/emoret/rpmbuild/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2/src' make[2]: *** [all] Error 2 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/emoret/rpmbuild/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2/src' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/emoret/rpmbuild/BUILD/pulseaudio-0.9.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9607 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.9607 (%build) [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ locate avahi-compat-howl.pc /usr/lib/pkgconfig/avahi-compat-howl.pc [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ cd /usr/lib/pkgconfig/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] pkgconfig]$ ls -la howl.pc lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Jul 10 00:15 howl.pc - avahi-compat-howl.pc [EMAIL PROTECTED] pkgconfig]$ locate libhowl /usr/lib/libhowl.so [EMAIL PROTECTED] pkgconfig]$ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 11:13 EST --- Also I have noticed that pabrowse is part of module-zeroconf while pax11publish is in utils even if it depends on module-x11. Don't you think it might make more sense to either include pabrowse in utils or move pax11publish in module- x11 for sake of consistency? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-10 16:35 EST --- pabrowse is packaged with lib-zeroconf (client side), not module-zeroconf (server side). There is no client side package for X11 integration (it's in the client lib unconditionally) so it made no sense to put pax11publish in its own package. The broken build is an error in the avahi package which has forgotten to add a dependency from the devel package to the main one. Filed as bug 198282. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: polypaudio: |Review Request: pulseaudio: |Improved Linux sound server |Improved Linux sound server --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-09 06:45 EST --- Spec URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio.spec SRPM URL: http://homes.drzeus.cx/~drzeus/pulseaudio/pulseaudio-0.9.2-1.src.rpm Updated to the new name and added the zeroconf parts. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198088 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||198089 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-09 13:43 EST --- Before I start reviewing this, I checked and I don't see anything resembling drzeus or your name in the cvsextras group. If you haven't been sponsored, your review tickets need to block FE-NEEDSPONSOR. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||177841 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-09 14:03 EST --- I haven't. So I'll add the dependency. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 195221] Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: pulseaudio: Improved Linux sound server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195221 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-07-09 17:25 EST --- OK, I'll take a look over the various packages; there should be enough here to show me what I need to know but if you've done some review work them please include the links so that I can take a look. Check http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/HowToGetSponsored for more information on the sponsorship process. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
