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=476398 --- Comment #26 from Alex Lancaster <alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-19 22:03:20 EDT --- Gentlemen, yes, let's keep the focus on the review. I agree with most of the issues Michael raised. However, I also think Conrad is doing his best and may have misinterpreted Michael's initial terseness as rudeness, although it wasn't intended that way. These issues aren't as well documented on the wiki and in the packaging guidelines as they could be, so I can understand the confusion. (I'm still learning about some of the more subtle issues with dynamic linking myself). In any case, as I am still the reviewer, here are the things I think still need fixing: 1. fix the SONAME issues. Perhaps check with Debian's package of eclib to see how they are doing it, so we can be consistent. One of the problems is that upstream doesn't maintain a stable API/ABI. 2. move the libraries to the standard location (I believe this was fixed in the last version) 3. implement "make check". disable the tests that fail for the moment and report them to upstream so they can be fixed in a later release (hopefully they will tell us which one's are expected to work and not work). -- 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