[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |


Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3
[Bug 3] Tracker: Packages under review.
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Nicolas Chauvet  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |EXPIRED

--- Comment #25 from Nicolas Chauvet  ---
(In reply to Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski from comment #23)
> FYI this is no longer relevant for FFmpeg as vo-aacenc is not supported.
> fdk-aac is for HE-AAC, and the native encoder is good enough for most cases.

Please re-open if anyone think this review is still relevant.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To unsubscribe send an email to rpmfusion-developers-le...@lists.rpmfusion.org

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

--- Comment #24 from Hans de Goede  ---
(In reply to rc040203 from comment #22)
> (In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #21)
> 
> - MUSTFIX: Building is non-verbose
> Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure

Fixed in 0.1.3-2

> - /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/vo-aacenc.pc seems broken to me.
> 
> It uses includedir=/usr/include,

Right, vo-amrwbenc does the same thing, the users expect to need to do:

#include 

I just tried building gstreamer1-plugins-bad-freeworld with vo-aacenc support
enabled and that works fine.

> - Consider to remove the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" from %install
> It's not needed anymore unless you plan to build this package for really
> ancient rhels.

Fixed in 0.1.3-2

> - Consider to remove the "Group" tags. They aren't used for anything in
> Fedora.

Fixed in 0.1.3-2

Here is 0.1.3-2 :

* Sat Sep 17 2016 Hans de Goede  - 0.1.3-2
- Pass --disable-silent-rules to %%configure
- Drop obsolete Group tags, rm -rf %%{buildroot}
- Use %%make_install

http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/vo-aacenc.spec
http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/vo-aacenc-0.1.3-2.fc26.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||domi...@greysector.net

--- Comment #23 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski  ---
FYI this is no longer relevant for FFmpeg as vo-aacenc is not supported.
fdk-aac is for HE-AAC, and the native encoder is good enough for most cases.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

rc040...@freenet.de changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||rc040...@freenet.de

--- Comment #22 from rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Hans de Goede from comment #21)

- MUSTFIX: Building is non-verbose
Please append --disable-silent-rules to %configure

- /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/vo-aacenc.pc seems broken to me.

It uses includedir=/usr/include, but the headers below /usr/include/vo-aacenc
are expecting to find vo-aacenc's headers under /usr/include/vo-aacenc:

e.g.
/usr/include/vo-aacenc/voAMRWB.h:#include  "voAudio.h"

i.e. they expect -I/usr/include/vo-aacenc and not -I/usr/include.


- Consider to remove the "rm -rf %{buildroot}" from %install
It's not needed anymore unless you plan to build this package for really
ancient rhels.


- Consider to remove the "Group" tags. They aren't used for anything in Fedora.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

--- Comment #21 from Hans de Goede  ---
Hi,

Ok, lets revive / reboot this review request. Here is an updates spec and srpm:

http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/vo-aacenc.spec
http://jwrdegoede.danny.cz/vo-aacenc-0.1.3-1.fc26.src.rpm

Changes since the list version:

* Fri Sep 16 2016 Hans de Goede  - 0.1.3-1
- New upstream release 0.1.3
- Stop building and packaging a statically linked lib

Regards,

Hans

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

--- Comment #20 from Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com 2014-03-02 
09:09:44 CET ---
Kevin,

I would like to move forward with this and at this time we 2 seem to be the
only 2 interested in getting this into rpmfusion.

Therefor I would like to take over as the package submitter, can you take over
as reviewer, review this and mark it as approved, then we'll see if we can get
someone to actually create a CVS module for this.

The links from the original description:

Spec URL: http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/vo-aacenc.spec
SRPM URL:
http://prabindatta.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/vo-aacenc-0.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm

Still work, and are the version I would like to import, so please review those.

Thanks  Regards,

Hans

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

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com

--- Comment #17 from Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com 2012-09-16 
09:11:20 CEST ---
Hi all,

2 things:

1) About the legal issue,
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=16431#c1 says:

This codec software has been developed by VisualOn based on 3GPP
specifications and has been included in the Android Open-Source Project.
VisualOn believes that it has the necessary rights to the AAC encoder code, but
is in the process of re-confirming this.

Thus I believe that we can and should simply ship this as part of free for 2
reasons:

a) We simply have to trust upstream when it comes to licensing statements, as
there usually is no other source for us to find out where the code comes from,
period. We do that for all packages, I don't see why this one is that much
different.

b) As for the fact that this happens to be derived from a reference
implementation. Well the whole purpose of said reference implementain is for
others to base encoders on it. So chances are that VisualOn has a license for
the necessary aac related IP, including the reference implementation. And until
we receive word to the contrary, we are back to a) trusting upstreams licensing
statement

c) a) apparently is good enough for google to continue shipping this. If it is
good enough for google I don't see why it is not good enough for rpmfusion.

Note IANAL, but still I say we should move forward for this.

2) I was not aware of this Review Request, so in the mean time I've created my
own package for this, see bug 2470. I'll mark 2470 as a dup of this one right
after this. But I do suggest that we use my version for importing once this
package is created in pkg CVS, because:
1) It is based on the newer 1.2 version
2) It properly uses %{?_isa} for the -devel Requires on the base package
3) It does not ship a static lib, which is a clear violation of the packaging
guidelines

Regards,

Hans

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

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

--- Comment #18 from Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@gmail.com 2012-09-16 
09:20:23 CEST ---
*** Bug 2470 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742

Tom thomasbel...@gmx.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||thomasbel...@gmx.com

--- Comment #16 from Tom thomasbel...@gmx.com 2012-09-15 22:09:40 CEST ---
Please ask again.

It's a pain creating a vo-aacenc package and adding --enable-libvo-aacenc
--enable-version3 to ffmpeg spec just to convert video for my phone with
Mobile Media Converter (another missing package).

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

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #14 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com  2011-10-06 21:22:18 ---
(In reply to comment #13)
 I have send a mail to i...@visualon.com asking about the legal issue with a
 link to this package review page.

Did you ever get a response? 


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #13 from Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com  2011-06-27 
19:04:32 ---
I have send a mail to i...@visualon.com asking about the legal issue with a
link to this package review page.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #12 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at  2011-06-16 12:30:57 
---
So how do we proceed from there? We surely can't bother RH Legal with this
patent-encumbered stuff, so who should decide whether we can ship this or not?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #11 from Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com  2011-06-09 
18:38:50 ---
Hi! Kevin Kofler,
After reading your question I was confused since these are legal issues. So, I
asked Upstream about this.

Here goes the Upstream's answers of all your questions:

 /--- (1.)
 Are we sure this package is actually legal to ship under the license it claims
 to be under?

 http://spectralhole.blogspot.com/2010/12/androids-stagefright-aac-encoder-or.html

 If the above blog post is true,

Yes, it's true, it is derived from the 3GPP reference implementation -
nobody denies that.

 this package contains non-Free code derived
 from the ISO AAC reference implementation just like FAAC does.

Except that in this case, VisualOn claims, by releasing the code under the
license they have done, that they have the right to doing it.

 /--- (2.)
 So http://www.mail-archive.com/libav-devel@libav.org/msg00895.html claims:
  The code in these libraries are (just as for opencore-amr) relicensed
  versions of 3GPP reference code, but all of it has, to the best of my
  knowledge, been checked for legal correctness by Google.

 Now whom do we believe? Do they have the rights to relicense that 3GPP code?

You can only know that by asking 3GPP and VisualOn.

 What about the code which 3GPP allegedly derived from ISO reference code?

The same goes here, you need to ask 3GPP.

 http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=88183pid=752806mode=threadedstart=#entry752806
 http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=16431

 (Google's response there shows that Google didn't check the legal status as
 claimed by Martin Storsjö, they're deferring all queries to VisualOn.)

That's the most authoritive answer you will get, unless you ask VisualOn
yourself. I have not done any further research myself - I only
redistribute code under the license that I have got it from
Google/VisualOn. You can't really get any further by discussing this issue
back and forth between people that haven't checked the issue and that
aren't lawyers.

Either you trust that VisualOn has done things right, or you ask them to
provide the necessary documents showing that everything is right.

 /- (4.)
 The opencore-amr and vo-amrwbenc codecs might also be encumbered, by the way.

Yes, the same goes for them, too, except that you need to ask PacketVideo
instead of VisualOn, for opencore-amr.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742


Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||kevin.kof...@chello.at
 Blocks|4, 33   |3




--- Comment #7 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at  2011-06-04 20:04:19 
---
Are we sure this package is actually legal to ship under the license it claims
to be under?

http://spectralhole.blogspot.com/2010/12/androids-stagefright-aac-encoder-or.html

If the above blog post is true, this package contains non-Free code derived
from the ISO AAC reference implementation just like FAAC does.

Bumping out of accepted because of the legal issues. If the above analysis is
true, the package is entirely undistributable in its current state and needs to
go to nonfree if its license headers get fixed.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #8 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at  2011-06-05 00:23:56 
---
So http://www.mail-archive.com/libav-devel@libav.org/msg00895.html claims:
 The code in these libraries are (just as for opencore-amr) relicensed 
 versions of 3GPP reference code, but all of it has, to the best of my 
 knowledge, been checked for legal correctness by Google.

Now whom do we believe? Do they have the rights to relicense that 3GPP code?
What about the code which 3GPP allegedly derived from ISO reference code?


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #9 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at  2011-06-05 00:30:00 
---
See also:
http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=88183pid=752806mode=threadedstart=#entry752806
http://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=16431

(Google's response there shows that Google didn't check the legal status as
claimed by Martin Storsjö, they're deferring all queries to VisualOn.)


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #10 from Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at  2011-06-05 00:34:33 
---
The opencore-amr and vo-amrwbenc codecs might also be encumbered, by the way.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742


Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||hobbes1...@gmail.com
 Blocks||4




--- Comment #6 from Richard hobbes1...@gmail.com  2011-05-11 15:13:08 ---
Just confirmed, bug 4 should not be removed when bug 33 is added.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742


Thibault North tno...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|3   |4




--- Comment #2 from Thibault North tno...@fedoraproject.org  2011-05-10 
17:03:24 ---
rpmlint output:
[tnorth@grouchy ~]$ rpmlint SRPMS/vo-aacenc-0.1.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/vo-aacenc-0.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/vo-aacenc-devel-0.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
RPMS/x86_64/vo-aacenc-debuginfo-0.1.0-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
vo-aacenc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec - cosec, codex, code
vo-aacenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec - cosec, codex,
code
vo-aacenc.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec - cosec, codex, code
vo-aacenc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec - cosec,
codex, code
vo-aacenc-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://opencore-amr.sourceforge.net/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
vo-aacenc-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
vo-aacenc-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
http://opencore-amr.sourceforge.net/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

(urls are okay, redirection breaks the rpmlint test)

# MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review. [OK]
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[OK]
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [OK]
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . [OK]
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .  [OK rpmfusion]
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.[OK]
# MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.[OK (NOTICE contains the licence of COPYING)]
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [OK]
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [OK]
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this. [OK]
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [OK]
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [NA]
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
[inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [OK]
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] [NA]
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [OK]
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [OK]
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [NA]
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.[OK]
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14]
[OK]
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [OK]
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.  [OK]
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [OK]
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [NA]
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [OK]
# MUST: Header 

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #3 from Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com  2011-05-10 
22:02:07 ---
Thanks! Thibault

Package CVS request
==
Package Name:  vo-aacenc
Short Description: VisualOn AAC encoder library
Owners: prabindatta
Branches: devel F-15 F-16 EL-6
InitialCC:
--
License tag: nonfree


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742


Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|4   |33




-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #4 from Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com  2011-05-10 
22:37:32 ---
Since it is similar to opencore-amr which is already available and also based
on VisualOn. 
I think this package will be under License tag: free (used opencore-amr as
reference)

Small change:
Package CVS request
==
Package Name:  vo-aacenc
Short Description: VisualOn AAC encoder library
Owners: prabindatta
Branches: devel F-15 F-16 EL-6
InitialCC:
--
License tag: free


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742





--- Comment #5 from Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com  2011-05-10 
22:53:55 ---
Sorry for again updating this. But this is request from a friend to add F-14
under branch.

Small change:
Package CVS request
==
Package Name:  vo-aacenc
Short Description: VisualOn AAC encoder library
Owners: prabindatta
Branches: devel F-14 F-15 F-16 EL-6
InitialCC:
--
License tag: free


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742


Prabin Kumar Datta linux.n@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||2




-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 1742] Review Request: vo-aacenc - VisualOn AAC encoder library

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1742


Thibault North tno...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #1 from Thibault North tno...@fedoraproject.org  2011-05-09 
22:48:49 ---
I'll review that one.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.