Package Details: lame-altivec 3.100-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/lame-altivec.git (read-only)
Package Base: lame-altivec
Description: AltiVec/SSE optimized LAME encoder
Upstream URL: http://tmkk.undo.jp/lame/index_e.html
Licenses: LGPL
Conflicts: lame
Provides: lame
Submitter: Chocobo1
Maintainer: Chocobo1
Last Packager: Chocobo1
Votes: 1
Popularity: 0.023314
First Submitted: 2017-10-15 13:19
Last Updated: 2017-11-07 04:26

Required by (188)

Sources (2)

Latest Comments

neitsab commented on 2017-11-08 18:39

> Hmm, you should check here instead: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/makepkg.conf?h=packages/pacman#n90
What on the Earth...? Gosh, thank you for pointing that one out. I stand corrected!

> Sorry my fault, will fix.
> Thanks for the link, I searched but came up nothing.
No problem, and thank YOU! :-)
Cheers

Chocobo1 commented on 2017-11-07 04:16

> ... So the license should be reverted to LGPL so as not to mislead anybody and mess with licensing (touchy topic).

Sorry my fault, will fix.


> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=193657 confirms this issue is actually an open discussion even among devs, and that it doen't violate the packaging standards.

Thanks for the link, I searched but came up nothing.


> I did: https://git.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/etc/makepkg.conf.in#n74

Hmm, you should check here instead: https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/tree/trunk/makepkg.conf?h=packages/pacman#n90

neitsab commented on 2017-11-06 20:44

Okay, maybe I badly expressed myself.

> Can you point out which file did you saw LGPL?
The original lame package is LGPL: see https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/lame/ and http://lame.sourceforge.net/ (the very first line, "LAME is a high quality MPEG Audio Layer III (MP3) encoder licensed under the LGPL").
lame-altivec is marked as being GPL, while the altivec patch/website doesn't mention any license. So the license should be reverted to LGPL so as not to mislead anybody and mess with licensing (touchy topic).

> Not sure, AFAIK it doesn't violate the packaging standards... and it does depends on C runtime.
https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=193657 confirms this issue is actually an open discussion even among devs, and that it doen't violate the packaging standards. However as Allan McRae puts it, "Include them. Although an Arch system without glibc has issues..."

> check makepkg.conf in pacman package
I did: https://git.archlinux.org/pacman.git/tree/etc/makepkg.conf.in#n74
"Default: OPTIONS=(strip docs libtool **staticlibs** emptydirs zipman purge !debug)"
(emphasis mine)

> This flag is enabled by default, specifying it is redundant.
True that, my bad (source: https://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html and ./configure -h). That's exactly why I was suggesting to remove the added staticlibs option ;)

> I was hoping one day they (LAME devs) would fix the testing... leaving a stub doesn't violates packaging standards IIRC.
It desn't, I was just wondering where it came from :)

Chocobo1 commented on 2017-10-18 15:09

> Hey, thanks for providing this package so soon after it is out!

You're welcome!

> LGPL license has been replaced with GPL

Can you point out which file did you saw LGPL?

> glibc was added as a (superfluous?) dependency

Not sure, AFAIK it doesn't violate the packaging standards... and it does depends on C runtime.

> staticlibs option was added to the PKGBUILD although it is already the default (see man makepkg.conf)

check makepkg.conf in pacman package.

> --enable-shared was removed from configure command (why?)

If you're requesting changes to be made, then I should be the one to be convinced, but I answer anyway...
This flag is enabled by default, specifying it is redundant.

> unused check() function was added

I was hoping one day they (LAME devs) would fix the testing... leaving a stub doesn't violates packaging standards IIRC.

neitsab commented on 2017-10-18 14:50

Hey, thanks for providing this package so soon after it is out!

A few points I noticed that differ from the package present in [extra] (https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/lame/):

- LGPL license has been replaced with GPL
- glibc was added as a (superfluous?) dependency
- staticlibs option was added to the PKGBUILD although it is already the default (see man makepkg.conf)
- --enable-shared was removed from configure command (why?)
- unused check() function was added

I made a local version including those changes, here is the git diff (for PKGBUILD and .SRCINFO): http://sprunge.us/aMBL

It'd be great if you could merge it, or explain why the changes were made so that I can create another package for my version!
Cheers