Orphaning Packages: audacious and dependencies

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 10:37:51 -0300, Paulo wrote:

> I have the .src.rprm for audacious2, here:
> 
> http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/repoview/audacious.html
> 
> http://orion.lcg.ufrj.br/RPMS/src/repoview/audacious-plugins.html

Note that Audacious 2 has changed to GPLv3 and that the old Fedora
packages contain a lot of cruft. I've cleaned up the 1.5.1 packages
in fedora cvs pretty much, but more cleanup is necessary for 2.0.1.
See below.

> But it builds everything, and I just created an audacious-libs2,
> so I do not need to recompile the applications I have, using
> libaudclient.so.1, for now.
> 
> I also do not want to maintain it, because it needs external packages
> to provide some codecs not allowed in Fedora.

Meanwhile I'm almost done with preparing packages for Audacious 2.
Actually I have it running here already, but whereas I'm 99% done with
the -plugins package I still need to examine/rediff the patches in the
main package. It's not something I've done in one tiresome block as I've
almost started from scratch, only keeping fragments of the cleaned-up
1.5.1 packages. Will publish them eventually prior to working on including
them in Fedora.

Some random observations: 

There are API changes, which break external plugins, GVfs e.g. and header
locations. At least audacious-plugin-fc needs an updated implementation.

There are patches that still need to be applied upstream.

There is stuff in the packages which I consider questionable.
E.g. mp3/mpeg/wma related MIME types get removed from the main desktop
file, but also WAV and Ogg, then a hidden desktop file is added in the
-plugins package which readds the removed types although the needed
plugins are not available in the Fedora packages due to legal reasons.
The 3rd party packages could add such hidden desktop files. And actually
the main player is useless without the plugins package, so why add a
second hidden desktop file at all?

Audacious 1 and Audacious 2 cannot coexist, since only the executables
have different names. I don't think it is worthwhile to create symlinks
for the old executable names.