Bug 4612

Change %if 0%{?fedora} && 0%{?fedora} >= 26 to
%if 0%{?fedora} >= 26

Because fedora-review still not work with rpmfusion review will short.
rpmlint is clean
license is clean
building for rawhide is clean

Because of bundling webrtc may be you should add Provides https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries?rd=Packaging:Bundled_Libraries#Requirement_if_you_bundle

Why does this qualify for rpmfusion repo?

(In reply to leigh scott from comment #2)
> Why does this qualify for rpmfusion repo?

Because it has bundled webrtc with patented technologies. It can't be applyed to fedora.

(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #3)
> (In reply to leigh scott from comment #2)
> > Why does this qualify for rpmfusion repo?
> 
> Because it has bundled webrtc with patented technologies. It can't be
> applyed to fedora.

Are they free or nonfree?

> Are they free or nonfree?

It's free. License: BSD. Official site: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/pulseaudio/webrtc-audio-processing/

libtgvoip is free too. License: Public Domain. Repository: https://github.com/grishka/libtgvoip

> Why does this qualify for rpmfusion repo?

Libtgvoip requires part of webrtc project - patented echo cancellation algorithms. Without it it will be useless.

webrtc-audio-processing package available in Fedora repositories, but eac and some other patented algorithms are removed from library and development package.

We need to create webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld package or I can bundle it in package (bundled version use only eac, not whole webrtc library).

I removed the + flag as I see no review!

(In reply to leigh scott from comment #8)
> I removed the + flag as I see no review!

May be you can repair fedora-review?

Spec URL: https://github.com/xvitaly/tgbuild/raw/master/libtgvoip.spec
SRPM URL: http://koji.russianfedora.pro/kojifiles/work/tasks/4692/54692/libtgvoip-1.0-2.20170801gitbfd5cfe.fc27.src.rpm

(In reply to Vasiliy Glazov from comment #9)
> (In reply to leigh scott from comment #8)
> > I removed the + flag as I see no review!
> 
> May be you can repair fedora-review?

It's your duty to produce a public review, tooling should not replace your own responsibility.

Can you (reviewee, reviewer, anyone) please state why unbundling a library that is only useful to telegram even make sense ? what's the reasoning behind ?

If I would be accurate, you should also unbundle webrtc-audio-processing by making a webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld package. Seems like you are making halt of the job here, so I really fail to understand what's the reasoning behind.

I'm not very pleased to such pointless changes because I see packagers wasted time that would better be employed by doing other reviews...

> Can you (reviewee, reviewer, anyone) please state why unbundling a library that is only useful to telegram even make sense ? what's the reasoning behind ?

libtgvoip is required for Telegram Desktop voice calls.

Full webrtc-audio-processing (with aec) is required for libtgvoip to add echo cancellation and noice reduction. It cannot be built without it.

Now libtgvoip is included into Telegram Desktop package. I want to separate it for two reasons:
1. don't build it with Telegram to decrease build time and don't waste build infra resources;
2. Telegram forks and alternate clients can use this library instead of bundling their own.

> If I would be accurate, you should also unbundle webrtc-audio-processing by making a webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld package.

I can unbundle it, but first someone need to add webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld with full set of required algorithms.

(In reply to Vitaly Zaitsev from comment #12)
...
> > If I would be accurate, you should also unbundle webrtc-audio-processing by making a webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld package.
> I can unbundle it, but first someone need to add
> webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld with full set of required algorithms.
Well, you could make it. But it would be complicated given freeworld packages up to now are packages that can be installed on their own (like freetype-freeworld) and that are not installed as a mandatory dependency from another software.

In others word, there would be a need to verify that webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld would not produce unexpected behavior with packages in fedora using the patent free webrtc-audio-processing from fedora.

Another way would be to build this package with a rpath on a directory where the webrtc-audio-processing-freeworld would reside (outside of the linker search path).

At this step, it seems easier to keep webrtc-audio-processing bundled.

Anyway, I don't have strong opinion on this, you just need not to break others software.

> At this step, it seems easier to keep webrtc-audio-processing bundled.

Yes, I think that this is a best choice.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
     Has bundled library webrtc.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: 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 is included in %license.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint has no errors.

No one does not have objections?

Package processed

checkout using

rfpkg co free/libtgvoip

> checkout using

Permission denied (publickey).

Cloned directly via Git. Now works.