Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428568 --- Comment #34 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak@xxxxx> 2009-03-19 06:46:34 EDT --- A few comments and a new package: 1.) Please, no more backtraces of crashes. (Thanks for them though.) I am aware of the problem. Unfortunately, I can't reproduce it and suspect it's x86_64 specific. I can't do much about it unless I gain access to x86_64, or will be able to do scratch builds against synfig. I promise I'll deal with the problem once the package is approved, so that synfigstudio (bug #479527) builds. According to review guidelines [1] this is not a review blocker: MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines 2.) synfig_module.cfg (In reply to comment #28) > * First there is the synfig_module.cfg needs: > usually libtool-ltdl modules doesn't need to be hardcoded in such file. That > will be hard to extend the functionnalities of synfig if we need to register > every module using this. I'm not doing anything about this now. synfig_module.cfg is quite easily machine-modifiable, the same way as shell(5) or maybe even grub.cfg. It could be argued that it's useless and that synfig should dlopen all dsos from a directory, but on the other hand synfig_module.cfg gives the opportunity to disable modules w/o deleting them. I'm not going to deviate from upstream here, especially in a case like these, where it would remove (probably not much used) functionality. 3.) libtool (In reply to comment #28) > * Then, it seems that the modules implementation settle on the needs of the > libtool .la files. This is very annoying and needs to be fixed. That's a design decision. Libtool is useful here, and I highly doubt you'll convince upstream not to use it. All I can do here is include the .la files in -devel to allow external modules, though it would probably violate the guidelines. -- Nicolas, if I understand your concerns -- are you planning to package a module separately? Are there any external modules? (or you're planning to build mod_libavcodec?). (In reply to comment #30) > But in when I'm reviewing a package, then i consider the software as a whole. > (guidelines includes usability tests after all). Usability or external linkability? Seriously, while there are minor concerns about adding external modules, the package works well (apart from the x86_64 crash issue) for its intended purpose. > Now I've never said that the first issue was a blocker nor that the above > remarks constitutes a full review, indeed. May I humbly request a full review then? This has been open for some time now, and I'd be very glad if it could have some productive outcome. -- (In reply to comment #33) > warning: "/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/synfig.debug": The separate debug info file > has no debug info The new package fixes the use of optflags, so that debugging symbols are generated correctly. SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/synfig.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/synfig-0.61.09-3.fc11.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review