https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
Bug ID: 2247274 Summary: Review Request: noopenh264 - Fake implementation of the OpenH264 library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: klember@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/noopenh264.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/noopenh264-0.1-1.20231031git6be12ba.fc40.src.... Description: Fake implementation of the OpenH264 library we can link from regardless of the actual library being available.
Fedora Account System Username: kalev
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108373319 (Note that the resulting rpms aren't downloadable from koji because we have a redirect in place that sends *openh264* to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Non-distributable-rpms - we'll need to adjust it to allow this package and gstreamer1-plugin-openh264, but this can wait until after the package review is done and the infra freeze is over.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- The idea with this package is that we ship a dummy library with openh264 headers and pkg-config file that other packages in Fedora (gstreamer openh264 plugin) can use at build time, and then at run time (after first package update) the dummy implementation gets replaced by the actual openh264 library that is downloaded from Cisco.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |ngompa13@gmail.com CC| |ngompa13@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6585248 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yselkowi@redhat.com
--- Comment #4 from Yaakov Selkowitz yselkowi@redhat.com --- I'm wondering, instead of needing a replacement dance, if it would make more sense for this to be a dlopen wrapper on top of Cisco's openh264, sort of like libglvnd does on top of mesa (and/or proprietary implementations), or ocl-icd does on top of several implementations. In other words, as far as everything else is concerned, this would be "the" openh264 and provides headers, link libs, pkgconfig, etc. that ffmpeg, gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free, and mozilla-openh264 (or whatever would provide it going forward) could build against in Fedora, and then Cisco openh264 would provide (just) the actual implementation (when installed). That would probably involve renaming some packages and libraries, but it avoids the need to replace one thing with another (which seems problematic particularly wrt flatpaks, if not in general).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #5 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Oops, I just noticed that I put the pkg-config file in a wrong subpackage. That also explains why I failed to make 'Conflicts: pkg-config(openh264)' work earlier, hah!
Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/noopenh264.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/noopenh264-0.1-2.20231031git6be12ba.fc40.src....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1996403 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1996403&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6585248 to 6585584
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6585584 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #8 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com ---
I'm wondering, instead of needing a replacement dance, if it would make more sense for this to be a dlopen wrapper on top of Cisco's openh264, sort of like libglvnd does on top of mesa (and/or proprietary implementations), or ocl-icd does on top of several implementations. In other words, as far as everything else is concerned, this would be "the" openh264 and provides headers, link libs, pkgconfig, etc. that ffmpeg, gstreamer1-plugins-bad-free, and mozilla-openh264 (or whatever would provide it going forward) could build against in Fedora, and then Cisco openh264 would provide (just) the actual implementation (when installed). That would probably involve renaming some packages and libraries, but it avoids the need to replace one thing with another (which seems problematic particularly wrt flatpaks, if not in general).
That would certainly be an option, and a fairly good one I think! It needs a bit more work though, which I am not ready to commit to right now, but maybe we can work towards that in the future.
The flatpak replacement is not an issue at all, I have it all figured out and working locally - I actually started looking into this in order to make the flatpak openh264 extension easier. If we don't go for "noopenh264" for all of Fedora, I'd like to bring it in just for Fedora flatpaks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- * Thu Nov 02 2023 Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com - 0.1.0~openh264_2.3.1-1 - Switch to using upstream openh264-2.3.1 tag - Make sure the matching openh264 version is listed as part of the rpm version tag - Stop using forge macros to get better control over the version and release tags
Spec URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/noopenh264.spec SRPM URL: https://kalev.fedorapeople.org/noopenh264-0.1.0~openh264_2.3.1-1.fc40.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 1996840 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1996840&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6585584 to 6592700
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://gitlab.com/freedesk | |top-sdk/noopenh264
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6592700 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #12 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Review notes:
* Package follows Fedora Packaging Guidelines * Package builds and installs * Package licensing is correctly handled * No serious issues from rpmlint
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #13 from Neal Gompa ngompa13@gmail.com --- Please make sure you make an EPEL 9 branch for this too, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #14 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review, Neal!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/noopenh264
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2247274
Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Fixed In Version| |noopenh264-0.1.0~openh264_2 | |.3.1-1.fc40 Last Closed| |2023-11-06 11:08:25
--- Comment #16 from Kalev Lember klember@redhat.com --- I've built the package for rawhide and will follow up with epel9 once we have rawhide sorted out. So far it's parked in a side tag in order to avoid breaking composes as *openh264* downloads are blocked in kojipkgs.
Here's my ansible PR to unblock it in kojipkgs: https://pagure.io/fedora-infra/ansible/pull-request/1620 - this needs to land first before we can tag noopenh264 in f40.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org