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=510734 --- Comment #11 from Axel Thimm <axel.thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-19 12:10:46 EDT --- I'm aware of the guidelines and libvncserver, still this is a different matter. The guidelines address the convenience copy of libraries carried in other projects. Here the minilzo is by designed to be embedded. If you really want shared lzo, you need to use the proper lzo library, minilzo was designed for a local static build. Upstream disagrees that minilzo is being used exposed in a shared lib way. If you want to patch the static lib away, OK, but using the forced-to-be-shared-minilzo is the wrong way, patch it to use the full lzo. The fact that libvncserver uses the same flawed approach is no excuse to repeat the same mistakes. In fact the minilzo subpackage should be banned, but if more and more packages use it, beacaue another package did, it will not be extractable anymore. Don't let me fool you - ask libvncserver & x11vnc upstream as well as lzo upstream to confirm or deny the above. BTW AFAIK libvnxserver still uses its internal minilzo. Not by choice, but because the patching proves to be a nightmare, see bug #439979. So on top of everything else, one creates a big unmaintainable patch, that will slow down any furture upstream upgrade as it will need months/years again to be retrofitted. -- 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