[Bug 2736] Review Request: fdk-aac - Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2736

--- Comment #27 from Christopher Atherton  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet from comment #23)
> SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/fdk-aac/fdk-aac.spec
> SRPM:
> http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/fdk-aac/fdk-aac-0.1.5-0.1.gita0bd8aa.
> fc24.src.rpm
> Summary: Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library
> 
> Changes:
> - Spec file clean-up
> - Update to 1.5 github snapshot
> 
> 
> This library is for the nonfree section.
> 
> @Christopher , please create a fas account in fas.rpmfusion.org if not done
> already, I will add you as a co-maintainer. Thx

Signed up in fas.rpmfusion.org as: cjatherton
Thanks!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2736] Review Request: fdk-aac - Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2736

Sérgio Basto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 Blocks|2   |3
   Assignee|rpmfusion-package-review@rp |ser...@serjux.com
   |mfusion.org |

--- Comment #26 from Sérgio Basto  ---
fedora-review --other-bz https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org -b 2736 -m
fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_nonfree

no issues , just not sure is documentation aacDecoder.pdf and aacEncoder.pdf
should be in devel package , at least in -doc sub package ... 


Rpmlint (debuginfo)
---
Checking: fdk-aac-debuginfo-0.1.5-0.1.gita0bd8aa.fc26.x86_64.rpm
fdk-aac-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license FDK-AAC
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)

fdk-aac-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license FDK-AAC
fdk-aac-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license FDK-AAC
fdk-aac-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
fdk-aac.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Fraunhofer -> Fraudster
fdk-aac.x86_64: W: invalid-license FDK-AAC
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.


invalid license is not an problem, only-non-binary-in-usr-lib usr/lib have a
symlink correctly and other warnings can be ignored.

fdk-aac.spec looks good , source field could be more simple :
https://github.com/mstorsjo/%{name}/archive/%{commit0}/%{name}-%{shortcommit0}.tar.gz

So just need clarify documentation and I will approve it .


Thanks

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

Re: libdvdcss in RPM Fusion ?

[Sérgio Basto]

On Ter, 2016-09-06 at 12:13 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/06/2016 10:03 AM, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > 
> > 2016-09-06 9:48 GMT+02:00 Ralf Corsepius :
> > > 
> > > On 09/01/2016 06:56 PM, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Nicolas, can you share your thoughts on this?
> > > libdvdcss's legal situation in Germany is widely unclear[1].
> > > 
> > > According to German laws cracking "wirksame technische Maßnahmen“
> > > ("effective technical measures") of copy protection is unlawful.
> > > 
> > > The fundamental question in this context is: "Does CSS (still)
> > > qualify as an
> > > effective technical measures of copy protection?"
> > > 
> > > Answer: Nobody knows. Only courts would be able to answer this
> > > question.
> > > 
> > > I.e. the legal risks of libdvdcss have not changed for years,
> > > i.e. should
> > > libdvdcss binaries enter RPMFusion, esp. German RPMFusion mirror
> > > owners/mirror managers are not unlikely to be confronted with
> > > legal action.
> > How many legal action have occurred ?
> AFAICT, none. I am inclined to believe all German sites shied away
> from 
> shipping libdvdcss, to avoid these risks.

Reading this thread and think about, my conclusion is: that is an kind
of politic decision ... , and maybe we should contact a lawyer. One
idea/suggestion that I recalled, is workaround the problem of legality
doing a statement like "we remove package if someone ask for it with
one legal support decision" , the fact is : we don't have an expressed
decision that is nonlegal , so until then we may consider legal, if
someone "ask" to remove wiit based on some law, we remove it and don't
have problem, anyway a lawyer can help in terms that we can use .
I prefer not have an special repo and keep it simple. 

> Ralf
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

Re: Buildroot override request

[Sérgio Basto]

On Qua, 2016-09-07 at 10:40 +0200, Xavier Bachelot wrote:
> On 07/09/2016 08:33, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > You can now use koji-rpmfusion tag-build f2?-{,non}free-override
> > your_rpmfusion_build_nvr for rpmfusion build to request an override
> > tag. This will trigger a regen-repo task (if there is a metadata
> > issue, that migh be possible to workaround to force a regen-repo
> > task).
> > 
> > It's not possible to tag a fedora package, (that's a manual task),
> > so
> > please ask on bugzilla and assign the request to me if needed.
> > 
> > Untag is not possible yet, I will need to fix the koji-hub policy
> > 
> > This should be reported in our wiki.
> Done : http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Requesting_a_buildroot_overr
> ide

I don't fully understood this is to test or is an fact ? 
I did: rpmfusion-koji tag-build f25-free-override VirtualBox-5.1.4-
3.fc25 

Created task 30421
Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)...
30421 tagBuild (noarch): free
30421 tagBuild (noarch): free -> closed
  0 free  0 open  1 done  0 failed

30421 tagBuild (noarch) completed successfully

I had to wait a few minutes

so we should also add wait-repo command 

rpmfusion-koji wait-repo f25-free-build --build=VirtualBox-5.1.4-3.fc25

Successfully waited 0:00 for VirtualBox-5.1.4-3.fc25 to appear in the
f25-free-build repo

So it is work for me ! great !

Note: IIRC rpmfusion-koji doesn't not exist yet in 
rpmfusion-packager ... 

    diff /usr/bin/arm-koji /usr/bin/rpmfusion-koji -s
Files /usr/bin/arm-koji and /usr/bin/rpmfusion-koji are identical

So as workaround we may just do "cp /usr/bin/arm-koji
 /usr/bin/rpmfusion-koji" to have rpmfusion-koji 

"rpmfusion-koji" is the same of "koji -c /etc/koji/rpmfusion-config"

> Regards,
> Xavier
-- 
Sérgio M. B.

[Bug 2736] Review Request: fdk-aac - Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2736

--- Comment #25 from Eric Work  ---
@Nicolas, Since I'm now using the Negativo17 ffmpeg package and actually using
the native AAC encoder now I have less of a need for this package.  I don't
mind helping to maintain the package as new releases come out and do some
testing.  I don't know when I'd have time to do another review if that is also
being asked.  I don't mind either way being a co-maintainer or not.  I'll try
and help out when I can, but not going to feel hurt if not a co-maintainer :-)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 2736] Review Request: fdk-aac - Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2736

--- Comment #24 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
@Eric, same for you if you want to co-maintain.
Feel free to assign the review, I should have fixed your earlier comments, thx.

About your last comment, fdk-aac is GPL incompatible (according to ffmpeg folk
because of some additional restrictions added to the files headers to the
LGPL). So it's illegal to enable the gpl flag (aka to enable x264/x265 and some
others libraries) along with the --nonfree flag (required for cuda/fdk-aac/etc)
and redistribute the same build. (it's perfectly fine for your own usage or if
kept in the same organisation). 
Having it shared or builtin isn't relevant at all.
If you redistribute such build, it will be a violation of the ffmpeg and others
developers rights.

Instead, we plan to redistribute a ffmpeg build with the gpl flag disabled. So
this package will be redistributed as "L"GPL instead of GPL. This build can be
redistributed even if we have activated few non-free dependencies.
At least that the plan to be discussed in the coming ffmpeg-nonfree review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

AAC in RPM Fusion ?

[Nicolas Chauvet]

2016-09-06 20:55 GMT+02:00 Sérgio Basto :
...
XXX have others sources like openh264, vo-aacenc , fdk-aac, we
> are going only discus libdvdcss ? or we may extend for other patents
> problems .

The AAC case is way less problematic because:
- fdk-aac itslef can be allowed in the nonfree section (see rfbz#2736)
- we 'could' (1) introduce a ffmpeg-nonfree to enable it, and as there
are other "users" of that nonfree capability (such as cuda) that
became relevant to maintain an alternate (binary only) ffmpeg built.

vo-aacenc should be superseded by fdk-aac or ffmpeg internal AAC
encoders with 3.x+,

openh264 could be introduced in RPM Fusion free (we don't replace
fedora package from the main repo), but then it would mean the fedora
solution isn't suitable which I dislike.
If one wants to enable h264 support (and in gst probably) better to
have gstreamer1-libav (or ffmpeg-libs for firefox users).
So openh264 is a false problem to me, we have way better libraries.


So I don't see a fundamental design in our work-flow that wouldn't
allow to have full featured capabilities in our packages collection.
So I'm not much looking into theses downstream users that aren't
contributing back to us. I think their attitude is selfish.

Instead I'm more worried in our process, like peer package reviews and
the package review queue along with allowing new maintainers to join.
Having others sysadmin to step into infra tasks should be much more
widespread with the new infra. (thx Ben Rosser for your work on
rfpkg-minimal!)


(1), I will submit a RR in a few.


-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)

[Bug 2736] Review Request: fdk-aac - Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2736

--- Comment #23 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
SPEC: http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/fdk-aac/fdk-aac.spec
SRPM:
http://rpms.kwizart.net/fedora/reviews/fdk-aac/fdk-aac-0.1.5-0.1.gita0bd8aa.fc24.src.rpm
Summary: Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library

Changes:
- Spec file clean-up
- Update to 1.5 github snapshot


This library is for the nonfree section.

@Christopher , please create a fas account in fas.rpmfusion.org if not done
already, I will add you as a co-maintainer. Thx

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

Re: Buildroot override request

[Xavier Bachelot]

On 07/09/2016 08:33, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:

Hi,

You can now use koji-rpmfusion tag-build f2?-{,non}free-override
your_rpmfusion_build_nvr for rpmfusion build to request an override
tag. This will trigger a regen-repo task (if there is a metadata
issue, that migh be possible to workaround to force a regen-repo
task).

It's not possible to tag a fedora package, (that's a manual task), so
please ask on bugzilla and assign the request to me if needed.

Untag is not possible yet, I will need to fix the koji-hub policy

This should be reported in our wiki.


Done : http://rpmfusion.org/Contributors#Requesting_a_buildroot_override

Regards,
Xavier

Buildroot override request

[Nicolas Chauvet]

Hi,

You can now use koji-rpmfusion tag-build f2?-{,non}free-override
your_rpmfusion_build_nvr for rpmfusion build to request an override
tag. This will trigger a regen-repo task (if there is a metadata
issue, that migh be possible to workaround to force a regen-repo
task).

It's not possible to tag a fedora package, (that's a manual task), so
please ask on bugzilla and assign the request to me if needed.

Untag is not possible yet, I will need to fix the koji-hub policy

This should be reported in our wiki.

Thx


-- 
-

Nicolas (kwizart)