[Bug 1179982] Review Request: docsis-config-encoder - Encode a DOCSIS binary configuration file

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1179982

Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request: docsis -    |Review Request:
                   |Encode a DOCSIS binary      |docsis-config-encoder -
                   |configuration file          |Encode a DOCSIS binary
                   |                            |configuration file



--- Comment #5 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Simon Farnsworth from comment #3)
> Three things to fix up:
> 
>  1. Source10 (the master branch version of COPYING) isn't good; it's a
> github page, not the raw text, and it changes every time it's downloaded.
> Could you get the raw text instead?

Fixed. There's no sense in linking any COPYING separately. Dunno why I did
that.

>  2. You have a bundled md5 implementation, but don't have the appropriate
> provides:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> No_Bundled_Libraries#Packages_granted_exceptions - I think it's
> bundled(md5-plumb) in this case.

Fixed.

>  3. I don't understand why you've put some of the documentation into
> /usr/share/docsis (the examples and the config format documentation), rather
> than into /usr/share/doc/docsis or into a separate docsis-doc subpackage.

Fixed.

> And some personal notes:
> 
>  * I don't like naming the package "docsis" - it's too general for my
> liking, given how big the DOCSIS spec is. Perhaps "docsis-config-encoder"?

Hmm, you should better discuss that with upstream. But okay, fixed.

>  * 1.4M of the resulting installed package is "noarch" MIBs, to 500k of
> arch-dependent binaries. Is there any use for these MIBs without the config
> encoder? If so, it might be nice to split them out into their own noarch
> subpackage.

Fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]