[Bug 547993] Package Name Change: jconvolver - Real-time Convolution Engine

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Dec 20 22:20:40 UTC 2009


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547993





--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>  2009-12-20 17:20:39 EDT ---
Thanks Mtasaka,

(In reply to comment #4)
> Well,
> 
> ? About Source1:
>   - I checked http://www.kokkinizita.net/linuxaudio/downloads/index.html ,
>     however the license of Source1 seems unclear. Would you ask upstream?
> 

Sure. I just asked upstream via email.

>   - While Source0 is 128K, Source1 has 6.0M (50 times the size of Source1)
>     and as a result while jconvolver binary rpm has 6.4M its debuginfo rpm
>     has only 48K.
>     Is Source2 always needed for jconvolver? Also are there any reason
>     behind that jconvolver and -reverbs are not seperately packaged (into
>     rpm)?  

Ah, this is the way we used to package jconv. It is a "packager's choice" in
some sense. Let me elaborate:

Imagine that you are packaging an office package. The office software makes use
of fonts that are under a special format that can only be opened from this
particular office software. Of course the software can operate without these
fonts but it is 50 times more functional if it these fonts were available. :)

It is almost the same situation with jconv(olver). We can put these in a
subpackage. But given the target audience is really limited to enthusiasts and
these reverbs aren't updated independently from jconv(olver) software, it is
not beneficial to make a subpackage (or a separate package).

This package came from PlanetCCRMA. We didn't receive any user complaints about
the size all this time either here or at PlanetCCRMA list. Therefore I decided
to keep things the way they were for consistency.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list