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: gnuradio - Software defined radio framework Alias: gnuradio-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433642 ------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-03-05 02:43 EST ------- 10.) gnuradio-devel: /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core-qa.so /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core-qa.so.0 /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core-qa.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core.so /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core.so.0 /usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgr_audio_alsa.so /usr/lib64/libgr_audio_alsa.so.0 /usr/lib64/libgr_audio_alsa.so.0.0.0 /usr/lib64/libgromnithread.so /usr/lib64/libgromnithread.so.0 /usr/lib64/libgromnithread.so.0.0.0 Why do you pack shared libraries in -devel? -devel should not be required for vital package functionality! Hint: In most cases, *.so belong to -devel. Versioned ones never do. 11.) gnuradio-doc; maybe this is not a problem, just a question: You have directory /usr/share/doc/usrp-3.1.1 The package that you build is called gnuradio-usrp Wouldn't it make sense to either rename the package to usrp, or the doc directory to gnuradio-usrp-3.1.1? (given what are the filenames in that package, I'd go for the first and would put the usrp documentation into that package) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review