https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1014468 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 --- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1) The website says it is: note: "Old. Refer to above SV8 lib (compatible with SV7)". Unfortunately upstream hasn't versioned the soname. I've already mailed them about this, but haven't received a reply. I could request rebuilds with the new soname version, just to be sure. I can't think of another way of handling this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 --- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net&gt; --- Evaluating whether the dependencies would rebuild (with the new lib being API-compatible) is a prerequisite for any upgrade like 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 Bug 1018546 depends on bug 1018544, which changed state. Bug 1018544 Summary: Review Request: libcuefile - A stripped down version of cuetools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018544 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 --- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) <sanjay.ankur(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Uhm, this one doesn't have a reviewer yet, does that make it a dead review or one waiting for a reviewer? -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546 --- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net&gt; --- Are they API compatible? If they are not compatible, the typical solution is to create packages that don't conflict with eachother. [...] $ rpmls -p musepack-libmpc-1.3.0-0.1.svn484.fc23.x86_64.rpm -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/mpc2sv8 -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/mpccut -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/mpcenc -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/mpcgain -rwxr-xr-x /usr/bin/wavcmp I find the naming and subpackage split somewhat unfortunate. The musepack-libmpc package does not contain a "libmpc". There hasn't been one before. libmpc is a common prefix for the project libs with MPC being an abbreviation of Musepack. In SVN, libmpc is sort of an umbrella, with the sub-projects stored in various subdirs. There are only a couple of static libs built into the various tools. There is no shared libmpcenc, for example. The old encoder was called "mppenc" as a tool without a lib, too. The musepack-libmpc package contains only tools. The musepack-libmpc-devel package doesn't contain any lib either, just unversioned base headers. How much can you do with these headers only? libmpcdec-devel needs them, but hey, everything is built from a single src.rpm, so why create separate subpackages already? Would anything want only musepack-libmpc-devel? And libmpcdec-devel cannot be used standalone, as it needs headers from musepack-libmpc-devel. Finally, libmpcdec contains not only the single shared lib but also the "mpcdec" command-line tool. It's at 1.0.0, however, not 1.3.0. That's because the official release date is not reflected in the built rpms except for the "r475" in %release. Upstream tells: | musepack_src_r475.tar.gz | | Musepack SV8 libs & tools (r475) | | Stable release of Musepack SV8 libraries and tools | | License: BSD/GNU LGPL | Release date: 2011.08.10 I don't know how important the r475 revision is for upstream when doing future releases. SVN trunk is at r485, but the internal version of libmpcdec is unchanged. It's at 1.3.0 since 2009. The same rpm also builds the tools, each with an own version. E.g. mpcenc is at 1.30.1, mpcdec at 1.0.0. It would be difficult to specify a strict dependency on "libmpcdec > r484", for example, because one cannot ignore everything at the left side of Fedora's %release value for that package. Giving the tools package the internal version of libmpcdec is strange. Note that a strict subpackage split could set an own %version for each subpackage, if needed. Will the "Stream Version" ever change again? It's at SV8 for several years. As a suggestion, I would name the Source RPM "musepack-sv8" (or simply "musepack") and build subpackages in the same namespace: musepack-sv8-libs <-- there's just one lib so far, however musepack-sv8-tools <-- there's half a dozen tools musepack-sv8-devel Easier to find for users searching for musepack. Currently, if you search for "musepack", you would get musepack-libmpc not giving any hint that it contains tools, and additionally, it pulls in libmpcdec as it doesn't work without that lib. If there ever will be more shared libs to put into individual subpackages, that could still be done if necessary. About the versioning here, it doesn't follow the guidelines. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages As libmpc has been at 1.3.0 in 2009 already, this checkout cannot be a pre-release of 1.3.0. No "0." prefix in %release. It would either need to be a post-release snapshot, or a pre-release of whatever version would be released next, e.g. 1.3.1 or 1.4.0. Then the guidelines want the checkout date be inserted: 1.3.0-1.20140717svn484.fc22 If the upstream release versioning scheme is unknown, %version could be set to '0', which gives you much more freedom to squeeze details into %release. -- 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