Hi all,
I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion for some time.
The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin. Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: with Fedora's qtractor.
The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.
One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts
Is this reasonable?
regards,
Brendan
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:34 +0200, BJ (Brendan) wrote:
Hi all,
I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion for some time.
The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin. Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: with Fedora's qtractor.
That's the way to go, IMO, provided that RPM Fusion don't disagree and start a we've-been-first-to-package-qtractor game. I would hope that they would be happy to rename to -freeworld.
The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.
True. There would be a window of N weeks during which qtractor-freeworld could "Obsoletes: qtractor < 0.5.3-3", and afterwards, Fedora's qtractor would be published.
One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts
Is this reasonable?
Not so good wrt the package naming guidelines. Also, a "yum install qtractor" with plain Fedora would still not work. Sure, one can "yum search qtractor", but it would be odd to not use the upstream name as other dists do it (independent of whether a 3rd party has packaged it first).
On 05/23/2012 04:44 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:34 +0200, BJ (Brendan) wrote:
Hi all,
I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion for some time.
The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin. Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: with Fedora's qtractor.
That's the way to go, IMO, provided that RPM Fusion don't disagree and start a we've-been-first-to-package-qtractor game. I would hope that they would be happy to rename to -freeworld.
Unfortunately quite the opposite, there's a fair bit of resistance - the package has passed review and I've since unpushed an update while we work this out.
By the same token I can understand where they're coming from - when (or if - I'm still not convinced) the bug reports come in they will have to deal with it in the first instance. The maintainer in rpmfusion has indicated he was looking to give it up, so I'll fire this scenario (with me maintaining in both repos back at them).
The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.
True. There would be a window of N weeks during which qtractor-freeworld could "Obsoletes: qtractor< 0.5.3-3", and afterwards, Fedora's qtractor would be published.
One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts
Is this reasonable?
Not so good wrt the package naming guidelines. Also, a "yum install qtractor" with plain Fedora would still not work. Sure, one can "yum search qtractor", but it would be odd to not use the upstream name as other dists do it (independent of whether a 3rd party has packaged it first).
On 05/23/2012 11:42 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 05/23/2012 04:44 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:59:34 +0200, BJ (Brendan) wrote:
Hi all,
I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion for some time.
The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin. Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: with Fedora's qtractor.
That's the way to go, IMO, provided that RPM Fusion don't disagree and start a we've-been-first-to-package-qtractor game. I would hope that they would be happy to rename to -freeworld.
Unfortunately quite the opposite, there's a fair bit of resistance - the package has passed review and I've since unpushed an update while we work this out.
By the same token I can understand where they're coming from - when (or if - I'm still not convinced) the bug reports come in they will have to deal with it in the first instance. The maintainer in rpmfusion has indicated he was looking to give it up, so I'll fire this scenario (with me maintaining in both repos back at them).
The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.
True. There would be a window of N weeks during which qtractor-freeworld could "Obsoletes: qtractor< 0.5.3-3", and afterwards, Fedora's qtractor would be published.
One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts
Is this reasonable?
Not so good wrt the package naming guidelines. Also, a "yum install qtractor" with plain Fedora would still not work. Sure, one can "yum search qtractor", but it would be odd to not use the upstream name as other dists do it (independent of whether a 3rd party has packaged it first).
OK, I think I have a solution. We'll stick to the name qtractor in Fedora, do the rename in RPMFusion but implement alternatives there.
To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog / update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired. Sound OK?
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog / update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired. Sound OK?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it, I'd follow the following steps:
1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete qtractor 2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora 3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from qtractor-freeworld 4. Build qtractor in Fedora
The advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).
Jonathan
On 05/24/2012 11:13 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog / update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired. Sound OK?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it, I'd follow the following steps:
1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete qtractor 2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora 3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from qtractor-freeworld 4. Build qtractor in FedoraThe advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).
Sure - however we should still implement alternatives in the qtractor-freeworld package right? (btw review is approved in Fedora already - although I've pulled the update for the moment)
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 11:35 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 05/24/2012 11:13 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
On Thu, 2012-05-24 at 10:18 +0200, Brendan Jones wrote:
To cater for existing RPMFusion users, I can be clear in the changelog / update notes that this Fedora package is replacing the one in qtractor and they should install qtractor-freeworld if MP3 support is desired. Sound OK?
I don't have a strong opinion either way, but if I was implementing it, I'd follow the following steps:
1. Push qtractor-freeworld into RPM Fusion and have it obsolete qtractor 2. Finish getting qtractor reviewed in Fedora 3. A week or two after (1) happens (and *before* qtractor gets pushed to testing in Fedora), remove the obsoletes from qtractor-freeworld 4. Build qtractor in FedoraThe advantage of this process is that most RPM Fusion qtractor users get qtractor-freeworld automatically (and the longer the obsoletes is left in, the more RPM Fusion users get qtractor-freeworld).
Sure - however we should still implement alternatives in the qtractor-freeworld package right? (btw review is approved in Fedora already - although I've pulled the update for the moment)
I'm afraid I know very little about alternatives, so I'm not in the position to give advice. If I understand what Nicolas is saying, alternatives make more sense than having two versions that conflict.
Jonathan
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Brendan Jones -
Jonathan Dieter -
Michael Schwendt