[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android-fr

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Wim Taymans  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

Summary|Review Request: fdk-aac -   |Review Request: fdk-aac -
   |Third-Party Modified|Third-Party Modified
   |Version of the Fraunhofer   |Version of the Fraunhofer
   |FDK AAC Codec Library for   |FDK AAC Codec Library for
   |Android |Android-fr



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #99 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
I will let the task to sort out what works and does not with this particular
implementation on the gstreamer side, as only gstreamer will consume this
library within Fedora as I expect.

For the packaging side, I confirm that having a fdk-aac-free package with the
current upstream SONAME unmodified in fedora is acceptable. Even having a
virtual provides for fdk-aac (but no obsoletes).
That's a compromise to avoid breaking our non-replacement policy (that others
third part repositories don't follow). Along with not having existing end-users
package replaced by a less featured version.

Please keep in mind that as soon as RPM Fusion is concerned, we may NOT test if
the Fedora library is at the same version as the RPM Fusion one, we may update
the package according to the Fedora updates policy, so any future ABI changes
will have to be taken into account on the Fedora side in the appropriate
timing.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #98 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
(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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #97 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(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).
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.

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.

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.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



--- Comment #96 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
*sigh*

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #95 from Wim Taymans  ---
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #94)
> (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #93)
> > Done, sorry for the delay.
> 
> Wim, are you going to request the repo again?

Can you re-approve the bug again?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #94 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #93)
> Done, sorry for the delay.

Wim, are you going to request the repo again?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/IG7FMLM555XFV7MDV2J3QSRGJ2KS46RR/

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #93 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Done, sorry for the delay.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QS5XHBMZJLY3PI37NFAA3OXWHAF7JMIU/

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/CT7C4ZCREQATRKACZHRNXE3B4CASMOIE/

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Q5ICK5XVG6EHJ5IPHAKG3CQXYAZESCNF/

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #92 from Wim Taymans  ---
Request for new repo is denied:

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/6760

Dominik, can you approve this bug?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
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/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Z7CUA5OMLVYUICQWW5B4WCL6WHKEXKUV/

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #91 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #88)
> The thing is, this kind of transitory approval:
> 
> (quoting Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #75)
> > If the FSF provides clarity, I will add it to this ticket. Obviously, if
> > they find it to be non-free (and this package is added to Fedora), it will
> > be subsequently removed.
> 
> is going to cause a lot of pain for RPM Fusion, who may end up having to
> move this package back and forth between their free and nonfree sections,
> and all the work on a -freeworld package can end up being wasted.
> 
> I do not see why we need to rush this and cannot wait for a conclusive
> answer on the licensing status. (If RHEL 8 is the reason, it is NOT
> appropriate to rush incomplete things into Fedora just to get them
> automatically merged into RHEL.)

The thing is nobody experienced in license review is actually expecting the FSF
to declare this non-free. I know Tom doesn't and I know RH legal doesn't. So we
are asking the FSF for a review out of an abundance of caution, but it is silly
to hold up merging this feature due to an extremely unlikely outcome.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #90 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #82)
> $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
> Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over
> 60 days ago

I reset the flag for you.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review+  |fedora-review?



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #89 from Michael Catanzaro  ---
It has nothing to do with RHEL... the goal is to get AAC support into Fedora so
that GStreamer can play MP4 videos. The other half of the effort will be
enhancing OpenH264 to support MP4.

Spot has already said that it's unlikely this package will fail to receive
license approval from the FSF, so I would not worry so much about that

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #88 from Kevin Kofler  ---
The thing is, this kind of transitory approval:

(quoting Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #75)
> If the FSF provides clarity, I will add it to this ticket. Obviously, if
> they find it to be non-free (and this package is added to Fedora), it will
> be subsequently removed.

is going to cause a lot of pain for RPM Fusion, who may end up having to move
this package back and forth between their free and nonfree sections, and all
the work on a -freeworld package can end up being wasted.

I do not see why we need to rush this and cannot wait for a conclusive answer
on the licensing status. (If RHEL 8 is the reason, it is NOT appropriate to
rush incomplete things into Fedora just to get them automatically merged into
RHEL.)

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #87 from Michael Catanzaro  ---
We can't block indefinitely on the FSF. Since they can't provide us with a
timeline in which we can expect an answer, it's time to proceed.

It's also not appropriate to ask Fedora maintainers to additionally maintain
software in third-party repositories.

Please proceed with adding the package.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #86 from Kevin Kofler  ---
What I would like to see is
1. an answer from the FSF, and then, depending on the answer:
2. a. if the FSF considers the license non-free, this review request dropped,
OR
2. b. if the FSF considers the license free, an fdk-aac-freeworld (NOT -nonfree
at that point) in RPM Fusion, and some plan to not break things for existing
RPM Fusion users (i.e., a coordinated import).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)



--- Comment #85 from Kevin Kofler  ---
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #80)
> (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #79)
> > (In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #76)
> > > let's move on, please request the repo using -> 
> > > 
> > > $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
> > 
> > Please don't. I put back the FE-Legal block waiting for an answer from the
> > FSF.
> 
> They don't have power over this ticket / Bugzilla.
> 
> We've got explanation from spot so I think you shouldn't block it again.

Spot wrote in comment #75:

> however, if a community member disagrees and wishes to wait on the FSF, they
> may put the FE-Legal block on the package until that answer comes back.

and that is exactly what I am doing.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #84 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(In reply to Peter Lemenkov from comment #81)
...
> Put it simply it's RF who is the second class citizen here, not the other
> way around. So it's a RF maintainer's duty to cope with the Fedora changes.
I don't understand the second class citizen concept. I would more say that when
a group of people helps, they should be taken with consideration and respect.
Right now it's easy to install the fdk-aac codec fully backend upstream. Just
enable the rpmfusion-nonfree repo and use dnf install fdk-aac

What you describe simply does not exist. You are right to say that's I cannot
enforce anyone from the community to work on something he doesn't like. But
that argument apply to the fdk-aac reviewed plan in the first step. Because the
proposal is based on "someone-else to do the complementary work", not him. And
that person still do is not nominated yet. (would be welcomed)

Of course bug occurring either side will have to be properly handled.

My position is nothing else but: get someone to work on the complement package
(even with an anonymous account). And don't expect anyone else responsibility.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #83 from Peter Robinson  ---

> What now?

The reviewer can probably un-set and re-set the review + flag

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #82 from Wim Taymans  ---
$ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
Could not execute request_repo: The Bugzilla bug's review was approved over 60
days ago

What now?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #81 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #78)
> (In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #77)
> > (In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #76)
> > > let's move on, please request the repo using -> 
> > > 
> > > $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
> > Would you volunteer to maintain the fdk-aac-nonfree counterpart in RPM
> > Fusion ?
> I would even re-phrase to: You are designed volunter to maintain the
> fdk-aac-nonfree along the current fedora fdk-aac maintainer. Now do the work!

I wouldn't say it like that. We can't force anyone working on anything. Rather
the other way around - a current fdk-aac maintained in RF should handle it.

Put it simply it's RF who is the second class citizen here, not the other way
around. So it's a RF maintainer's duty to cope with the Fedora changes.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Peter Lemenkov  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal)   |



--- Comment #80 from Peter Lemenkov  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #79)
> (In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #76)
> > let's move on, please request the repo using -> 
> > 
> > $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
> 
> Please don't. I put back the FE-Legal block waiting for an answer from the
> FSF.

They don't have power over this ticket / Bugzilla.

We've got explanation from spot so I think you shouldn't block it again.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #79 from Kevin Kofler  ---
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #76)
> let's move on, please request the repo using -> 
> 
> $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522

Please don't. I put back the FE-Legal block waiting for an answer from the FSF.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #78 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #77)
> (In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #76)
> > let's move on, please request the repo using -> 
> > 
> > $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
> Would you volunteer to maintain the fdk-aac-nonfree counterpart in RPM
> Fusion ?
I would even re-phrase to: You are designed volunter to maintain the
fdk-aac-nonfree along the current fedora fdk-aac maintainer. Now do the work!

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #77 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(In reply to Itamar Reis Peixoto from comment #76)
> let's move on, please request the repo using -> 
> 
> $ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522
Would you volunteer to maintain the fdk-aac-nonfree counterpart in RPM Fusion ?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Itamar Reis Peixoto  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||ita...@ispbrasil.com.br



--- Comment #76 from Itamar Reis Peixoto  ---
let's move on, please request the repo using -> 

$ fedpkg --module-name fdk-aac request-repo 1501522

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Tom "spot" Callaway  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #75 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
To be clear, since this is NEEDINFO on me:

* Red Hat considers this license to be a Free Software License. (and I agree)
* Since there was community disagreement on this point, I asked the Free
Software Foundation to review the license and determine if it is Free or not in
January 2018.
* There has been no update on this (of any substance) since then.
* I have reached out to the FSF a few times to check on status, and was told
that they have a bit of a backlog.
* At LibrePlanet 2018, I asked again, and they are checking on it for me.

I do not personally believe there is any license or legal reason to hold on
merging this into Fedora, however, if a community member disagrees and wishes
to wait on the FSF, they may put the FE-Legal block on the package until that
answer comes back.

If the FSF provides clarity, I will add it to this ticket. Obviously, if they
find it to be non-free (and this package is added to Fedora), it will be
subsequently removed.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #74 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) from comment #72)
> You are not changing anything to the copyright if the patent is expunged
> from the library. So, the library still has to be considered as non-floss 
> The uncertainty about the license condition would still apply.

What uncertainty?  RH Legal has already cleared the license.

> Now about RPM Fusion. We have a non-replacement policy for fedora packages
> in our default enabled repositories. So if you still decide to introduce
> this broken package (both legally and technically), then we will move our
> fdk-aac to a side repository that will need to be explicitly enabled.

No, the intended solution would be to add an ld.so.conf.d-managed
fdk-aac-freeworld similar to that of freetype-freeworld and
qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld.

> The point is. If the goal was to restore the support relying on the external
> repository policy. Why just not only to rely on it in the first step and
> drop the fedora fdk-aac package ?

The goal is to get as much as we possibly can into Fedora itself.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #73 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> It was re-added in comment #54, but I see no actual legal questions there: 
> only > technical objections.

Comment #52 is a legal question. It is definitely not technical.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #72 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Just for been clear. The original problem with fdk-aac was never about patent
(at least on the 3rd party level). It's all about copyright.

You are not changing anything to the copyright if the patent is expunged from
the library. So, the library still has to be considered as non-floss 
The uncertainty about the license condition would still apply.

Now about RPM Fusion. We have a non-replacement policy for fedora packages in
our default enabled repositories. So if you still decide to introduce this
broken package (both legally and technically), then we will move our fdk-aac to
a side repository that will need to be explicitly enabled.

As I haven't see anyone to volunteer to maintain the fdk-aac-nonfree
complementary package. It means that you will provide that package by default
to users. And I'm afraid that without the complementary package, many users
will have a broken experience of he-aac with fedora.

The point is. If the goal was to restore the support relying on the external
repository policy. Why just not only to rely on it in the first step and drop
the fedora fdk-aac package ?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Michael Catanzaro  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal)   |



--- Comment #71 from Michael Catanzaro  ---
(In reply to Kevin Fenzi from comment #70)
> I'm perfectly aware of that, but that is not required for a Fedora review. 
> 
> I guess the question is if Tom would like to keep a legal hold on this until
> we hear back from the FSF or if we should move forward.

Tom dropped the original FE-Legal hold way back in comment #2.

It was re-added in comment #54, but I see no actual legal questions there: only
technical objections.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #70 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #69)
> > Both Legal and FESCo have approved this; can we please move this forward?
> 
> Again, we still do not have the answer from the FSF promised in comment #52.

I'm perfectly aware of that, but that is not required for a Fedora review. 

I guess the question is if Tom would like to keep a legal hold on this until we
hear back from the FSF or if we should move forward.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Kevin Kofler  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||needinfo?(tcallawa@redhat.c
   ||om)



-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #69 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> Both Legal and FESCo have approved this; can we please move this forward?

Again, we still do not have the answer from the FSF promised in comment #52.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #68 from Kevin Fenzi  ---
(In reply to Yaakov Selkowitz from comment #67)
> Both Legal and FESCo have approved this; can we please move this forward?

The submittor just needs to use fedpkg request-repo (see fedpkg request-repo
--help for for details of setup), or fedrepo-req to request the package, then
as soon as it's created they can import and build.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #67 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
Both Legal and FESCo have approved this; can we please move this forward?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #66 from Kevin Kofler  ---
My point is that we should wait for what they actually say instead of assuming
things.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #65 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #61)
[...]
> The problem is that the third-party repository was previously shipping a
> different codec, the built-in one from FFmpeg, as the default, with nicer
> licensing and better FFmpeg integration. Now they'll have to deal with
> fdk-aac just because Fedora decided to ship a crippled version of it. And
> they'll have to do an fdk-aac-freeworld override without a real need for it.
> 
> And the other problem is that the decoder Fedora is going to ship silently
> produces wrong sound for some input files! That fits my definition of a
> broken decoder exactly.

I already said that and both Wim and FESCo said they're fine with that. There's
no need to repeat things ad nauseam.

> (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #60)
> > (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #57)
> > > We still don't know the outcome of comment #52 (license review by the 
> > > FSF).
> > 
> > That's irrelevant. RH legal already cleared it.
> 
> So you would be happy to ship something the FSF considers non-free?

I wouldn't, but FSF hasn't spoken on this matter yet, as far as I know. Can you
provide a link to a public statement by FSF saying otherwise? I don't see the
FDK AAC license on https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and I trust
spot's opinion that it's unlikely they will consider it non-free.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #64 from David Vásquez  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #63)
> The problem is that GStreamer will end up using fdk-aac (through some plugin
> that Fedora is going to ship) instead of FFmpeg (through gstreamer1-libav).

We should not worry about it; if we recently had many changes in gstreamer
"lame" ... twolame ... a52dec; maybe the future is gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free;
it can't replace gstreamer1-libav (it only uses ffmpeg); who use
gstreamer1-libav? Videos (totem), mpv... generally video players.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #63 from Kevin Kofler  ---
The problem is that GStreamer will end up using fdk-aac (through some plugin
that Fedora is going to ship) instead of FFmpeg (through gstreamer1-libav).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #62 from David Vásquez  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #61)
> (In reply to David Vásquez from comment #59)
> > If fdk-aac was approved, then welcome (I will give positive karma here). The
> > world is changing, and we must adapt. The user must choose; then we need
> > give the user the options. If some third-party repository does not want to
> > maintain the original fdk-aac, It is problem of the repository; other will
> > do...  This is how the world works.
> 
> The problem is that the third-party repository was previously shipping a
> different codec, the built-in one from FFmpeg, as the default, with nicer
> licensing and better FFmpeg integration. Now they'll have to deal with
> fdk-aac just because Fedora decided to ship a crippled version of it. And
> they'll have to do an fdk-aac-freeworld override without a real need for it.
> 
> And the other problem is that the decoder Fedora is going to ship silently
> produces wrong sound for some input files! That fits my definition of a
> broken decoder exactly.
> 
> (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #60)
> > (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #57)
> > > We still don't know the outcome of comment #52 (license review by the 
> > > FSF).
> > 
> > That's irrelevant. RH legal already cleared it.
> 
> So you would be happy to ship something the FSF considers non-free?

Hey! but the third-party repository isn't enable the support for fdk-aac by
default in ffmpeg...
https://github.com/rpmfusion/ffmpeg/blob/master/ffmpeg.spec#L91 . Then I can't
see a real problem here. Other, only the bundled ffmpeg in Handbrake use it... 
Maintain a fdk-aac-freeworld isn't  the death.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #61 from Kevin Kofler  ---
(In reply to David Vásquez from comment #59)
> If fdk-aac was approved, then welcome (I will give positive karma here). The
> world is changing, and we must adapt. The user must choose; then we need
> give the user the options. If some third-party repository does not want to
> maintain the original fdk-aac, It is problem of the repository; other will
> do...  This is how the world works.

The problem is that the third-party repository was previously shipping a
different codec, the built-in one from FFmpeg, as the default, with nicer
licensing and better FFmpeg integration. Now they'll have to deal with fdk-aac
just because Fedora decided to ship a crippled version of it. And they'll have
to do an fdk-aac-freeworld override without a real need for it.

And the other problem is that the decoder Fedora is going to ship silently
produces wrong sound for some input files! That fits my definition of a broken
decoder exactly.

(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #60)
> (In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #57)
> > We still don't know the outcome of comment #52 (license review by the FSF).
> 
> That's irrelevant. RH legal already cleared it.

So you would be happy to ship something the FSF considers non-free?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #60 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #57)
> We still don't know the outcome of comment #52 (license review by the FSF).

That's irrelevant. RH legal already cleared it.

(In reply to leigh scott from comment #58)
> (In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #56)
> 
> > I also assume Wim will co-maintain the corresponding RPMFusion package or at
> > least coordinate with its maintainer.
> 
> I guess that will be Han's now as I'm no longer going to it.

Who's "Han"?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #59 from David Vásquez  ---
If fdk-aac was approved, then welcome (I will give positive karma here). The
world is changing, and we must adapt. The user must choose; then we need give
the user the options. If some third-party repository does not want to maintain
the original fdk-aac, It is problem of the repository; other will do...  This
is how the world works.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #58 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #56)

> I also assume Wim will co-maintain the corresponding RPMFusion package or at
> least coordinate with its maintainer.
> 

I guess that will be Han's now as I'm no longer going to it.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #57 from Kevin Kofler  ---
We still don't know the outcome of comment #52 (license review by the FSF).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review-  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #56 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
There have been no new comments for 10 days and since FESCo (and I assume Wim
as well) is fine with dealing with the inevitable support issues, this package
is APPROVED.

I also assume Wim will co-maintain the corresponding RPMFusion package or at
least coordinate with its maintainer.

One small nit: please put each BuildRequires: in a separate line and sort them
alphabetically. You can do that upon importing the package.

A Fedora Community Blog post explaining what does and and what doesn't work
with this codec would also be a good idea.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #55 from Michael Catanzaro  ---
FE-Legal has already approved this package. Do you have a specific question for
them?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal)



--- Comment #54 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
Blocking FE-Legal, as it describes more was the current situation is.

Personally I would prefer this package to be free and in fedora, even
partially. But it's clearly not the case. Not only, this package is GPL
incompatible and I'm not going to re-state the detail on purpose here.

So far, Fesco only approved this build "if" it's free. Fesco did not describe a
method to make both ends works as appropriate WRT the packaging side, so the
situation is still moot.

The current proposal is in-appropriate. It only describes one end of the task
and leave the other part of the work to someone else that yet isn't nominated.

Worst, it will make the package to supersede the current version we package
without bringing more value to fedora+rpmfusion users.
Not replacing any "base distro" package is one core value of our project, so we
cannot accept a situation where, even if nothing as changed in our side, we
would be turned into a situation where we would not follow this non-replacement
guideline anymore.

The other issue is "how the packaging would be done", as this package is a fork
of the original fdk-aac project. Because of the fork, both projects can live a
different way and because we want to have full hands on the way we update the
fdk-aac package based on the original project, we don't want to be in a
situation where we would wait for a downstream  fork for update in order to
have a "coherent situation" WRT complementary packages and ABI, etc.

As a coordinator of a third party project, I retain the rights not to provide,
not to replace and not to complement any fdk-aac component that would be
introduced in fedora by a packager without any coordination with our project.
With that said, I would like to explicitly leave a room for anyone mandated to
"do the complementary job" to use the rpmfusion packagers infra for such
purpose. (provided that few restrictions are left on the infra side).


This hold for the general kind of such issue and in a more general manner I
would like to think on a written guideline to prevent such "half backed idea"
to hit the fedora repos in the future. That, in order to strength the unwritten
guideline of not re-using the package namespace if a fedora package is an
incomplete version of a package that is already found on our well known
repository.


While at it, I still have an alternatives method in mind that would prevent
this fdk-aac package to hit our "non-replacement policy".
It would be to have a "side repo" similar to the openh264 case (or even to
share the same repo). That way, it would be possible to enable such repository
on user request, if our repository isn't enabled.

As the consequence, none would have to deal with bugs introduced by the other
party and to deal with the complementary mess.


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235
[Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker
-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #53 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #51)
> Well, even if I reject this, you could always find another reviewer, so
> let's have FESCo decide: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1808 .
> Packaging-wise, this package is fine and I'll approve it if FESCo says go
> ahead.

FESCo approved this today.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #52 from Tom "spot" Callaway  ---
I have submitted this license for review to the FSF. I think it is extremely
unlikely that their opinion will differ from that of Red Hat Legal, but I have
no problem being thorough on this.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(dominik@greysecto |
   |r.net)  |



--- Comment #51 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Well, even if I reject this, you could always find another reviewer, so let's
have FESCo decide: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1808 . Packaging-wise, this
package is fine and I'll approve it if FESCo says go ahead. In that case, I'd
ask Wim to include appropriate and prominent notices in package summary,
description and README.Fedora detailing what is not working and why.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #50 from Kevin Kofler  ---
I think the current situation, where we have only a working AAC codec with a
complete decoder and whose freeness is undisputed (the FFmpeg one) in RPM
Fusion, is just fine, and actually better than additionally having a crippled
AAC codec with a questionable license (which AFAIK has still not been sent to
the FSF for comments) in Fedora that will only make users unhappy (and make it
harder for them to find the working codec).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Yaakov Selkowitz  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||domi...@greysector.net,
   ||yselk...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(dominik@greysecto
   ||r.net)



--- Comment #49 from Yaakov Selkowitz  ---
This may not be a *perfect* solution, but it would allow at least some AAC
support OOTB.  Having considered the options here, I completely agree with
Wim's proposal.  Can we get this back on track?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #48 from Richard Fontana  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #16)
> According to a link:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694257#20
> on that wiki page, Debian thinks that the following clause is non-free and
> GPL-incompatible:
> > You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or 
> > distribute
> > the FDK AAC Codec software or your modifications thereto.

The GPL also prohibits charging copyright license fees for use, copying and
distribution. So I don't think this clause contradicts the DFSG (or the FSD or
OSD).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Richard Fontana  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rfont...@redhat.com



--- Comment #47 from Richard Fontana  ---
(In reply to Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller from comment #43) 
> The policy does not actually state that all licenses has to be approved by
> the FSF. It just says that when we considering a license for Fedora we look
> at licenses approved by FSF, OSI and Red Hat legal. So in practice these 3
> groups are likely to agree on a license in the vast majority of cases and
> thus all current licenses as you say are FSF approved, but the policy does
> not state that FSF approval is a hard requirement.

At least since ~2008 the policy was not one that required FSF approval (or more
precisely FSF designation as a free software license), if only because that
would be impractical. However, there has traditionally been an effort to
faithfully apply the FSF's own interpretation of the Free Software Definition.
In one case I can vaguely remember, Fedora rejected a license as non-free, in
the absence of an opinion from the FSF, but the FSF thereafter concluded that
the same license was free. (I think this was the Yahoo! Public! License!
version 1.0.) This same policy has led to some cases in which an OSI-approved
license was rejected by Fedora as non-free, or a license that the OSI never
approved was accepted by Fedora as free. 

I don't think we ever faced a situation in which Fedora accepted a license as
free, in the absence of an FSF opinion, and later the FSF concluded that the
same license was non-free.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #46 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
Anyway, if anyone wants any further legal review or discussion about the finer
details of the license here I suggest emailing Tom Callaway and not do it here
on this bugzilla. It is the wrong venue and form and anyone who is actually a
lawyer with a say here would never post any kind of evaluation or
recommendation to this bugzilla. I appologize for letting myself get enganged
in such discussion here despite knowing this.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #45 from Kevin Kofler  ---
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations#Freedom .

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #44 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Even the introduction on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Project_Wiki
says:
> They are developed in Fedora and produced under a free and open source license
> from inception, so other free software communities and projects are free to
> study, adopt, and modify them.

The authority on what constitutes a free software license is the FSF. The
authority on what constitutes an open source license is the OSI. If Red Hat
Legal is going to approve licenses without asking either of them or even
against their advice, the claim that the software in Fedora is "under a free
and open source license from inception" is false advertising.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #43 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #40)
> It is a Fedora policy that licenses allowed in Fedora must be free according
> to the FSF.
> 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main also says:
> > This list is based on the licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation 
> > , OSI and consultation with Red Hat Legal.
> and all the licenses in the list so far:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
> are approved by the FSF (in 2 cases, under certain conditions that are
> required to be satisfied for software under those licenses to be allowed in
> Fedora).
> 
> Approving a license considered non-free by the FSF would be a significant
> policy change that needs approval from the Council and that I am strongly
> opposed against (and I hope I am not the only one).


The policy does not actually state that all licenses has to be approved by the
FSF. It just says that when we considering a license for Fedora we look at
licenses approved by FSF, OSI and Red Hat legal. So in practice these 3 groups
are likely to agree on a license in the vast majority of cases and thus all
current licenses as you say are FSF approved, but the policy does not state
that FSF approval is a hard requirement.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #42 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Oh, and for the technical issues:

(In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #34)
> Comment #11: why not have fdk-aac-stripped?
>   - Looking at freetype, and because the library is API and ABI compatible,
> it's better to have fdk-aac as the base name for the -devel and -debug.
> That way all packages can build against the more natural fdk-aac-devel
> and have the -freeworld package enhance it at runtime.

You can build fdk-aac-{stripped,free,patentfree,whatever} and fdk-aac-devel
from the same package, either a fdk-aac.spec with no main package, or by using
%package -n, or by using a virtual Provides (Provides: fdk-aac-devel in the
%package devel of your fdk-aac-*.spec).

So I still don't think shipping this as just fdk-aac is helpful, both for
honesty to users and for upgrade path reasons. The model to follow is
gstreamer-plugins-bad-free, not freetype, which is the way it is for historical
reasons mostly.

But of course this discussion is absolutely moot if the license turns out not
to be acceptable to begin with. Debian's opinion does not per se count, but the
FSF needs to be asked.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #41 from Kevin Kofler  ---
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#Freedom

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #40 from Kevin Kofler  ---
It is a Fedora policy that licenses allowed in Fedora must be free according to
the FSF.

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main also says:
> This list is based on the licenses approved by the Free Software Foundation , 
> OSI and consultation with Red Hat Legal.
and all the licenses in the list so far:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
are approved by the FSF (in 2 cases, under certain conditions that are required
to be satisfied for software under those licenses to be allowed in Fedora).

Approving a license considered non-free by the FSF would be a significant
policy change that needs approval from the Council and that I am strongly
opposed against (and I hope I am not the only one).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #39 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
Fedora Legal aka Red Hat legal has reviewed this license and is fine with it as
a free license. What the FSF or some random people at Debian thinks is of very
limited interest here.
So can we please stop playing laywer here and leave that to the actual lawyers.

As for the name of the rpmfusion package that will be up to rpmfusion and we
should not spend time discussing it here.

What we need to figure out here is how we package this code in Fedora and how
we can structure it in a way that allows other parties like rpmfusion to
enhance the offering if they are interested. I think Wims proposal addresses
that pretty well.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #38 from Kevin Kofler  ---
If the FSF agrees with Debian the license is non-free, then this code is not
allowed in Fedora at all, neither as a package nor bundled anywhere else.

If the FSF says the license is free, then we should go with the FSF's
judgement.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #37 from Kevin Kofler  ---
If Fedora considers the copyright license free, RPM Fusion probably should,
too.

Please note, however, that Debian thinks that the license is non-free (see
comment #16) and that the FSF should probably be asked. (Last I checked, they
were not asked yet according to Spot.) I object to approving this package as
long as this is not done.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #36 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart)  ---
(In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #34)
...
> The fdk-aac-freeworld name isn't acceptable as the package is considered
> nonfree,
>  the name should be fdk-aac-nonfree

Can someone explain why the hell are you going to accept a non-free software
into Fedora in the first step ?

https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AAC, quoting:
"FFmpeg supports two AAC-LC encoders (aac and libfdk_aac) and one HE-AAC (v1/2)
encoder (libfdk_aac). The license of libfdk_aac is not compatible with GPL, so
the GPL does not permit distribution of binaries containing incompatible code
when GPL-licensed code is also included. Therefore this encoder have been
designated as "non-free", and you cannot download a pre-built ffmpeg that
supports it. This can be resolved by compiling ffmpeg yourself. "

In others words, we are talking about having a nonfree software (fdk-aac) to
compete with a GPL compatible AAC-LC implementation provided by a FLOSS project
(ffmpeg) ? 

If gst (which is LGPL) wants to (<<

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #35 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #34)
> What I propose is this:
> 
> - Have fdk-aac be the default stipped version of the aac codec that we
> include
>   in Fedora. The -devel packages etc will be fdk-aac-devel etc.. Similar to
>   freetype
> - Have fdk-aac-freeworld in rpmfusion that installs the same .so in
>   /usr/lib64/fdk-aac-freeworld/ and adds this path to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/
>   This is similar to freetype-freeworld, see comment #14, comment #15
> - make rpmfusion packages Require: fdk-aac-freeworld. This would make apps
>   installed from rpmfusion also pull in the -freeworld version with complete
>   functionality.


The fdk-aac-freeworld name isn't acceptable as the package is considered
nonfree,
 the name should be fdk-aac-nonfree

https://admin.rpmfusion.org/pkgdb/package/nonfree/fdk-aac/

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #34 from Wim Taymans  ---
After some more thinking I think we need to try to achieve:

1) Be practical about what we can support and allow for tradeoffs between
   desired and allowed functionality.   
2) Keep it simple, don't try to patch too much stuff or be too clever, don't
   requires relinking or different versions of apps etc..
3) have things work somewhat reasonably by default in most cases
4) provide easy way to 'upgrade' to the real-but-non-free version if the user
   explicitly wants this

What I propose is this:

- Have fdk-aac be the default stipped version of the aac codec that we include
  in Fedora. The -devel packages etc will be fdk-aac-devel etc.. Similar to
  freetype
- Have fdk-aac-freeworld in rpmfusion that installs the same .so in
  /usr/lib64/fdk-aac-freeworld/ and adds this path to /etc/ld.so.conf.d/
  This is similar to freetype-freeworld, see comment #14, comment #15
- make rpmfusion packages Require: fdk-aac-freeworld. This would make apps
  installed from rpmfusion also pull in the -freeworld version with complete
  functionality.

Practically:
  gstreamer1-plugins-bad would build against fdk-aac-devel and play a subset of
  aac files with full quality and others with reduced quality. Other apps can
  do the same. Installing the -freeworld package enables full quality in all
  apps.

Updates SPEC and SRPMS with fixes for above review:

https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SPECS/fdk-aac.spec
https://people.freedesktop.org/~wtay/SRPMS/fdk-aac-0.1.5-4.fc26.src.rpm


Some answers:

Comment #11: why not have fdk-aac-stripped?
  - Looking at freetype, and because the library is API and ABI compatible,
it's better to have fdk-aac as the base name for the -devel and -debug.
That way all packages can build against the more natural fdk-aac-devel and
have the -freeworld package enhance it at runtime.

Comment #12: yay, we can enable it in ffmpeg
  - build against fdk-aac and require fdk-aac-freeworld to pull in the full
version when installing ffmpeg from rpmfusion.

Comment #22 ffmpeg fails with fdk-aac!
  - ffmpeg would be installed from rpmfusion and pull in the fdk-aac-freeworld
package and thus would work correctly because it decodes and encodes with
full quality.

Comment #7, Comment #31 it doesn't do everything, why bother?
Comment #25, it doesn't work as advertised, convince me..
  - The argument is that we can decode all AAC files, some with reduced
quality/functionality (not unlike the reduced quality of freetype,
albeit arguably more noticeable by non-experts). The path to full
quality is the same as it was before. On a scale from 0 to 10 we go
from a solid 0 to a positive score >0, which is an infinite increase
in betterness :).
  - The question of "why doesn't this sound as good as it does on $OTHER_OS"
is the same as "why do my fonts look so much worse than on $OTHER_OS". It
can be an educational moment instead of something to avoid.

Comments that fail rule 2:
  Comment #20, Comment #21, Comment #27
  patching GStreamer elements or parsers to somehow force the installation of
  fdk-aac-freeworld.
  - Arguably we could then even put the automatic installation of the library
inside the stripped fdk-aac library when it detects reduced functionality
and have things work outside of GStreamer as well. We could add a
Provides: fdk-aac-full in the rmpfusion version and ask the installer to
install something that provides fdk-aac-full, or something like that.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #33 from Wim Taymans  ---
I was thinking that we don't fork the GStreamer plugin but let it decide what
caps to advertise and support based on the fdk-aac implementation (we could ask
it to parse a config descriptor and see if it fails or not, for example). It
would need some plugin changes but that's not too complicated.

I guess for the codec installer we then need some way to install the other,
more complete, fdk-aac implementation, not sure how we can do that...

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #32 from Olivier Crête  ---
From the GStremer point of view, doing what Christian wants is easy, the steps
that need to happen are:

1. Import aacparse to recognize the HE-AAC profiles that the cut down fdk-aac
doesn't support. It's a bit of bitstream parsing, but nothing too complex for
Wim ;)
2. Change the soname of the cut-down fdk-aac library
3. Fork the GStreamer plugin with a different name, more restricted caps and a
lower rank

Then if you have files that it can play, it will just work without rpmfusion.
For other caps that the crippled fdk-aac can't handle, the plugin install magic
will still work and fetch it from rpmfusion or wherever. Once the rpmfusion
plugin is installed, it will just hide the fdk-aac one.  For applications that
don'T use GStreamer, well, that's too sad for them!

P.S. I guess you can alwasy keep the same soname and have the GStreamer plugin
recognize which one is installed in a way that changes the rank and caps when
the rpmfusion one is installed, I'm just not sure how feasible it is to replace
a rpm with another like this with current rpm/dnf/packagekit.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #31 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Out there in the real world, no serious user uses Fedora without the codecs
from RPM Fusion. (Well, maybe some do now that at least MP3 can be shipped in
Fedora, but still.) It is just a waste of everybody's time to try to ship
crippled codecs that only make it harder to install the ones that actually
work.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #30 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
What is in Fedora is what we ship in Fedora repositories or at the very least
allowed to include as a 3rd party repository, what might exist in other
repositories that we are not even allowed to mention in public announcements is
of no consequence here. We can't base our operating system user experience on a
policy of 'oh, that doesn't work? Well there might be something out there that
can help you *wink* *wink*'

We are looking at years before we can ship a different version and libav/ffmpeg
might never be shipable.

So what we could look at though is trying to ship this as something
parallel-installable with other versions of this library, don't know how
feasible that is.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #29 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Christian, supporting HE-AAC encoding is the raison d'être of fdk-aac.
Otherwise FFmpeg's aac codec is good enough for all other use cases. We already
have gstreamer1-libav in RPMFusion covering these, so having a crippled fdk-aac
in Fedora is no gain. See https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Encode/AAC for more
information. Unless we're looking at several years until unstripped fdk-aac can
be included in Fedora, I think it's not worth the effort to add support for
this stripped version to FFmpeg and other multimedia software and we should
just wait.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||cscha...@redhat.com



--- Comment #28 from Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller  
---
The GStreamer plugins have the ability to clearly negotiate the profiles they
support, so not supporting all possible profiles is not a good reason to not
ship this. If people need the less used profiles they will keep having the
ability to download software from various places that support those.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #27 from Olivier Crête  ---
Maybe we can just give it a different soname and then have the GStreamer plugin
register under a different name "fdk-aac-mini" that will only claim to accept
the profiles that are really support, that is the non HE profiles. I'm afraid
that may also require some work on aacparse to actually recognize those
profiles as we don't have full profile recognition in there yet.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #26 from David Vásquez  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #25)
> So, I am actually rejecting this review request on the grounds that it
> doesn't work as advertised (applications linking against this library expect
> it to support HE-AAC fully, including SBR). However, I'm open to hearing
> arguments to convince me that it's still a good idea to have a broken AAC
> codec in Fedora. Right now, I'm convinced it would only give Fedora a bad
> name.

Ok, the test show the differences. It fails.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review-



--- Comment #25 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
So, I am actually rejecting this review request on the grounds that it doesn't
work as advertised (applications linking against this library expect it to
support HE-AAC fully, including SBR). However, I'm open to hearing arguments to
convince me that it's still a good idea to have a broken AAC codec in Fedora.
Right now, I'm convinced it would only give Fedora a bad name.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #24 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Created attachment 1338931
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1338931=edit
Reference HE-AAC file decoded with FFmpeg's aac decoder

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #23 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Created attachment 1338930
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1338930=edit
Reference HE-AAC file decoded with fdk-aac-stripped

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #22 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
Ok, I tested ffmpeg-3.3.4 compiled against this stripped library and I don't
think it's a good idea to have this in Fedora at all. Playback of the reference
HE-AAC file (https://www2.iis.fraunhofer.de/AAC/SBRtestStereoAot29Sig2.mp4) is
wrong with ffplay -acodec libfdk_aac (compared to FFmpeg's built-in aac
decoder). In my opinion, until we can include the unmodified code, it makes no
sense for Fedora to ship it.

I'm attaching two wave files produced from the above mp4 file with:
ffmpeg -c:a libfdk_aac -i ./SBRtestStereoAot29Sig2.mp4
./SBRtestStereoAot29Sig2-fdk_aac-stripped.wav

ffmpeg -i ./SBRtestStereoAot29Sig2.mp4 ./SBRtestStereoAot29Sig2-aac.wav

You can hear the difference yourselves (top frequencies are not decoded and
simply missing in the first case).

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #21 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> There would need to be an update to the fdk-aac in rpmfusion to replace this
> -free package instead of causing a conflict.

Whoever is going to take care of it should take a close look at how the
freetype-freeworld and qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld packages I maintain are set up
and do the same. (And to give credit where credit is due, I did not invent this
scheme, I myself copied it from the atlas-sse* packages and the old (pre-glvnd)
nvidia driver packaging.)

> Do you also reflect the stripping in the GStreamer caps to try to install the
> rpmfusion version on higher profiles ?

How so? The GStreamer plugin would not change at all between the fdk-aac
versions because they are drop-in replacements of each other, just with a
different (smaller or larger) feature set compiled in.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Olivier Crête  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||olivier.cr...@ocrete.ca



--- Comment #20 from Olivier Crête  ---
Do you also reflect the stripping in the GStreamer caps to try to install the
rpmfusion version on higher profiles ?

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #19 from David Vásquez  ---
(In reply to Wim Taymans from comment #18)
> I'm thinking of naming the package fdk-aac-free. There would need to be an
> update to the fdk-aac in rpmfusion to replace this -free package instead of
> causing a conflict.
> 
> The stripped and unstripped .so files are API and ABI compatible so you
> would not need to recompile anything to get the complete version.


fdk-aac-free name, and ABI/API compatible, sounds great.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

Wim Taymans  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||wtaym...@redhat.com



--- Comment #18 from Wim Taymans  ---
I'm thinking of naming the package fdk-aac-free. There would need to be an
update to the fdk-aac in rpmfusion to replace this -free package instead of
causing a conflict.

The stripped and unstripped .so files are API and ABI compatible so you would
not need to recompile anything to get the complete version.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #17 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
FWIW abipkgdiff claims fdk-aac and fdk-aac-stripped are binary-compatible.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #16 from Kevin Kofler  ---
According to a link:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=694257#20
on that wiki page, Debian thinks that the following clause is non-free and
GPL-incompatible:
> You may not charge copyright license fees for anyone to use, copy or 
> distribute
> the FDK AAC Codec software or your modifications thereto.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #15 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
After some reading (wiki.hydrogenaud.io/index.php?title=Fraunhofer_FDK_AAC) and
closer look at the diff between this and original source, I'm afraid important
features are missing and hence I'd like to ask the submitter to accommodate the
existing package in RPMFusion and name this differently than fdk-aac (for
example, fdk-aac-free) or at least do the necessary legwork for RPMFusion
package and send a patch to rename to -freeworld and support parallel
installation like Kevin said in comment #14. It'd be great if you could become
co-maintainer there, too, to coordinate updates.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #14 from Kevin Kofler  ---
> Or just epoch the stripped package.

I assume you mean the unstripped one? But replacing Fedora packages that way is
against RPM Fusion policy, the user must opt in to every *-freeworld package
explicitly.

> > Looks like we need an fdk-aac-freeworld.
>
> In fact why do we?
> I believe the fedora fdk-aac package should be renamed to fdk-aac-stripped 
> and > use it's own directories to avoid conflicts.

The advantage of doing a -freeworld (set up like freetype-freeworld or
qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld) is that it should be possible (assuming the
stripping does not break the ABI) to replace the stripped Fedora version with
the complete RPM Fusion version at runtime, without recompiling dependent
packages. (freetype-freeworld and qt5-qtwebengine-freeworld don't even include
a -devel package, you just build against the Fedora version and make sure you
don't have an rpath on %{_libdir}, ld.so does the rest.)

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #13 from David Vásquez  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #12)
> (In reply to David Vásquez from comment #9)
> > fdk-aac in official is great! but if the stripped version disable important
> > functionalities then a fdk-aac-freeworld is necessary... exist people not
> > using 3rd party repositories; then for them sound great. in 3rd party repos
> > only handbrake needs fdk-aac...
> 
> With fdk-aac being free, we can enable it in FFmpeg.

But if the 3rd party repos enable fdk-aac in ffmpeg with the striped version, I
have doubts of it; We could get something incomplete. Other problem, ffmpeg is
part of packages who requires massive rebuild (yes in "so" bump); but exist the
possibilty of constantly changes = contantly rebuilds...

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #12 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
(In reply to David Vásquez from comment #9)
> fdk-aac in official is great! but if the stripped version disable important
> functionalities then a fdk-aac-freeworld is necessary... exist people not
> using 3rd party repositories; then for them sound great. in 3rd party repos
> only handbrake needs fdk-aac...

With fdk-aac being free, we can enable it in FFmpeg.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #11 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #8)
> Looks like we need an fdk-aac-freeworld.

In fact why do we?
I believe the fedora fdk-aac package should be renamed to fdk-aac-stripped and
use it's own directories to avoid conflicts.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #10 from leigh scott  ---
(In reply to Kevin Kofler from comment #8)
> Looks like we need an fdk-aac-freeworld.

Or just epoch the stripped package.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522

David Vásquez  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||davidjeremia...@gmail.com



--- Comment #9 from David Vásquez  ---
fdk-aac in official is great! but if the stripped version disable important
functionalities then a fdk-aac-freeworld is necessary... exist people not using
3rd party repositories; then for them sound great. in 3rd party repos only
handbrake needs fdk-aac...

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1501522] Review Request: fdk-aac - Third-Party Modified Version of the Fraunhofer FDK AAC Codec Library for Android

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1501522



--- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler  ---
Looks like we need an fdk-aac-freeworld.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org