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.
> ... 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.
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..."
"Default: OPTIONS=(strip docs libtool **staticlibs** emptydirs zipman purge !debug)"
> This flag is enabled by default, specifying it is redundant.
> I was hoping one day they (LAME devs) would fix the testing... leaving a stub doesn't violates packaging standards IIRC.
> Hey, thanks for providing this package so soon after it is out!
Can you point out which file did you saw LGPL?
Not sure, AFAIK it doesn't violate the packaging standards... and it does depends on C runtime.
check makepkg.conf in pacman package.
This flag is enabled by default, specifying it is redundant.
I was hoping one day they (LAME devs) would fix the testing... leaving a stub doesn't violates packaging standards IIRC.
Hey, thanks for providing this package so soon after it is out!
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!