https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://bugzilla.redhat.com | |/show_bug.cgi?id=1014468

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546

--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- (In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)

Is this lib from Musepack SV8 even ABI-compatible with SV7 libmpcdec? Isn't even the SONAME _supposed_ to be different already? The spec isn't ready, but the old lib is libmpcdec.so.5, and the spec uses .0 and asks which version is should be.

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.

And what about all the dependencies?

# repoquery --whatrequires libmpcdec cmus-0:2.5.0-4.fc20.x86_64 gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-0:0.10.23-19.fc20.i686 gstreamer-plugins-bad-free-0:0.10.23-19.fc20.x86_64 k3b-1:2.0.2-18.20130927git.fc20.x86_64 libmpcdec-devel-0:1.2.6-12.fc20.i686 libmpcdec-devel-0:1.2.6-12.fc20.x86_64 libtunepimp-0:0.5.3-23.fc20.i686 libtunepimp-0:0.5.3-23.fc20.x86_64 qmmp-0:0.7.2-1.fc20.i686 qmmp-0:0.7.2-1.fc20.x86_64 vlc-core-0:2.1.0-1.fc20.x86_64 xine-lib-0:1.1.21-8.fc20.i686 xine-lib-0:1.1.21-8.fc20.x86_64 xmms-musepack-0:1.2-13.fc20.x86_64 xmms2-0:0.8-13.fc20.i686 xmms2-0:0.8-13.fc20.x86_64

I could request rebuilds with the new soname version, just to be sure. I can't think of another way of handling this.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546

--- Comment #3 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---

I could request rebuilds with the new soname version, just to be sure.

Evaluating whether the dependencies would rebuild (with the new lib being API-compatible) is a prerequisite for any upgrade like this.

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546

--- Comment #5 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- Uhm, this one doesn't have a reviewer yet, does that make it a dead review or one waiting for a reviewer?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1018546

--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt bugs.michael@gmx.net ---

All dependent packages will need to be rebuilt since this version changes the version of the provided shared object: libmpcdec.so.6()(64bit). The older was libmpcdec.so.5()(64bit)

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.

musepack-libmpc-1.3.0-0.1.svn484.fc22.src.rpm

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.