Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: gnash - GNU Flash player https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=192049 ------- Additional Comments From pertusus@xxxxxxx 2006-05-17 10:51 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > > * there is a security issue that should be patched in fedora extras package, > > indeed there is an insecure use of /tmp. If it is too much work, at least > > there should be a note somewhere. > > Is there a patch from cvs that can be backported for this? Unfortunately not. I raised the issue on the gnash-dev list, though. That's the only thing that retained me from proposing gnash to FE ;-) > > * the documentation should be distributed (see the specfile in the tarball > > for hints on how to do this), except if there is a good reason not to > > distribute it? At least manpage and html manual, info files and > > scrollkeeper files would be bonus > > Sounds good. I added buildrequires docbook2X for that. This shouldn't be needed, as the files are allready up to date in the tarball. Doesn't hurt, though. There is a bug in doc/C/Makefile.am regarding info files installation during staged install. I'll attach patches. > > W: gnash devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/libgnashbase.so > > I removed them for now. Agreed, this seems to be the best solution until they are really usefull to develop something. > I also subpackaged the libraries. Really? It doesn't seems so to me... Anyway I think it is better to have the libraries together with the standalone player. But if you want to split, you can; -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review