Re: [Lame-dev] some minor patches

[Rogério B. <rb...@us...>]

Hi Fabian.

On May 26 2008, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> during my attempts to package LAME 3.97 for debian-unofficial.org, I
> (and the lintian package checking tool) have encountered several minor
> issues that I'd like to discuss with you:

I have mostly cleaned up the lintian warnings against the CVS version of
lame and I think that the package is compliant with the Debian Policy
version 3.7.3.

I was talking with Daniel Baumann one to see if he would accept my
packages, but I have received no response...

> 1) First of all, please refrain from providing a debian/ directory.
> There are still no official LAME packages in Debian (and will perhaps
> never be)

Indeed, no compiled versions of lame for any architecture.

> and all of the unofficial archives that I know of develop their own
> Debian packaging and delete the debian/ directory in the upstream
> tarball anyway.

Why develop their own debian/ directory? Why not submit the changes
upstream so that I can create a new module in CVS so that things get
separed?

> 2) Programs that link against libmp3lame complain about missing
> symbols from libm if linked with '--as-needed'. The attached patch
> 02_as-needed.patch solves this issue by explicitely adding '-lm' to
> the LIBADD line.

Please, could you send the patch inline? It seems that the mailing list
software that sourceforge uses ate your patch. :-( I would be interested
in your modifications.

> 3) The frontends (lame, mp3rtp and mp3x) are linked against the static
> libmp3lame.a. The attached patch 03_shared-frontend.patch fixes this
> issue by removing the '-static' flag from the frontends' LDFLAGS,
> making them robust against rebuilds of the library package and keeping
> the number of redundant copies of the same library in one system low,
> since libmp3lame.so will be installed anyway on most systems.

I'm also interested in this patch for the Debian builds, but I'm not
sure that they will be integrated into the 'generic' lame, as most
people use the lame binary on other operating systems (say, MacOS X)
without having to install the libraries (and the shared libraries seem
to be a completely different beast on MacOS X).

Anyway, I would be interested in this for lame. But the same comment
about the mailing list eating patches here. :-( (I don't know if other
members have received the integral patches).

> 4) The manpage doc/man/lame.1 provokes a syntax error from man because
> of an additional '.f' in the bottom line. The attached patch
> 04_manpage-syntax removes this line (although I have to admit I don't
> know what it was intended for at all).

The debian/package that I created still has that thing for the very same
reason that you didn't know what it was meant for. :-)

> 5) The last attached patch 05_gcc-4.3 fixes compilation with GCC 4.3
> which failed bacause of an invalid '-fforce-mem' statement. However,
> this issue seems to be allready fixed in a different way in your CVS,
> so please ignore this patch if inappropriate.

I have problems compiling lame with Apple's GCC 4.0.x (or whatever they
ship that may have backported patches) when I compile with expopts.


Regards, Rogério Brito.

-- 
Rogério Brito : rbrito@{mackenzie,ime.usp}.br : GPG key 1024D/7C2CAEB8
http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito : http://meusite.mackenzie.com.br/rbrito
Projects: algorithms.berlios.de : lame.sf.net : vrms.alioth.debian.org