Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: hylafax https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542 fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? | ------- Additional Comments From fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-20 13:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #62) > There is also two program founds: > WARNING, /usr/lib/sendmail does not seem to be an executable program; > WARNING, /sbin/mgetty does not seem to be an executable program; > I don't knwo if it will change to have them at build instead of runtime.... Having them at runtime is enough. > Since you have set $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (and they are used), you might be abble to remove > %define debug_package %{nil} > So the resulting binaries get stripped But then we still have an empty and therefore useless debuginfo package. (In reply to comment #61) > Christoph, are you still interested in this? Seems this takes much to much time; > see also https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17 Howard, I suggest you focus on this review instead of opening another one at rpmfusion. You will run into the same problems there as you are doing here. > Maybe someone else is willing to review this? Basically I'm still interested in this review and in (co)maintaining this package, But there still is a lot of issues with it. Biggest of all is the naming issue. As I said before this package should be named hylafax+, because when Paul submits hylafax for review we will get in trouble. What about packages sitting on top of hylafax(+), e. g. calpi4hylafax? How do we make sure that we are not getting a version race between hylafax+ and hylafax? I have no idea how to handle this, I asked on fedora-maintainers-list but the discussion never was really finished, see https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-July/msg00308.html Then we still have no debug information (why?), the unused-direct-shlib-dependency, some undefined non weak symbols and the problems Nicolas mentioned in comment #62. So I think I giving up this review. Sorry, maybe someone else is more successful. I'm still willing to help wherever I can. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review