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=495692 Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-08 07:52:57 EDT --- APPROVED [...] Some observations, though: * Version 1.0 of tslib uses version 0.0 in its SONAME and in the pkg-config file (libts-0.0.pc). Especially the latter is a questionable decision, because the pkg-config file doesn't do anything special and only returns the non-versioned -lts via --libs. There's no reason why upstream could not have named the file "libts.pc" then. Pkg-config can evaluate the internal "Version" field to requires specific versions or version-ranges. * The modules/plugins pollute the automatic RPM Provides (and hence the metadata) with their *.so names: $ rpm -qp --provides tslib-1.0-1.fc10.i386.rpm|grep -e so[^.] arctic2.so collie.so corgi.so dejitter.so h3600.so input.so linear.so linear_h2200.so mk712.so pthres.so ucb1x00.so variance.so Harmless, since nothing ought to depend on such symbols, but it's pollution nevertheless. * Asking upstream to run autogen.sh prior to creating the source tarball would be helpful. -- 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