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 --- Comment #9 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <kwizart@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-06-10 05:46:38 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > APPROVED > > [...] > > Some observations, though: And again, some very good comments. > * Version 1.0 of tslib uses version 0.0 in its SONAME and in the pkg-config Indeed, but until they change the API without bumping the release field, we can still assure they are using it right despite it could have been done better. > * 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[^.] It should be possible for the rpm dependency extractor to filter them as soon as it discovers that they are module to be used with dlopen ? It would be wondefull. > * Asking upstream to run autogen.sh prior to creating the source tarball would > be helpful. Yep, despite it could lead to problem once the sources are generated with a version of libtool patched in an incompatible way. (experienced with vlc in F-11: a binary failed to link with a just built library unless rpath as used at build time which I've explicitely forbidden). -- 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