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=603481 --- Comment #13 from Mads Kiilerich <mads@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-28 21:19:34 EDT --- > I'm surprised to see the libs still link against libpcsclite.so.1 and > linux-vdso.so.1 they were available during build. Which libs linked against it? I assume that rpmlint complained that they were unused? > This means that xfreerdp is the only working implementation of freerdp, right? > One more reason to have it in the freerdp binary package. I think my main comment to the package naming/separation is that upstream consider the library the primary product of the project. xfreerdp is just a demo-sample-toy-playground. Remmina (and similar projects if there are any) are the primary users of the library. Ok, so remembering the arguments and how you and I did it I now tend to prefer: a "freerdp" package that contains /usr/bin/xfreerdp and provides "xfreerdp". a "freerdp-libs" package that contains the main libs ... and perhaps everything else a "freerdp-libs-devel" with headers for the libs (though it seems like it usually is done as "freerdp-devel"?) I will try to make up my mind ... > > The docs in the tar is so outdated and misleading > > that they are worse than nothing. > > Another thing to fix upstream. Yeah, I know, writing documentation sucks, > coding is more fun. ;) Implementing MS protocols is actually not very funny ;-) -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review