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=439772 --- Comment #21 from Axel Thimm <axel.thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-31 03:47:08 EDT --- I think the choice to make minilzo a shared lib is probably not really what the authors of lzo or the consumer software intended. The idea was to have a one file statically swallowed in build procedures w/o any further ties to the lzo project. Now if the API/ABI of minilzo changes the other software is dependent on being patched up to work with it. Just looking at how this issue is holding up a useful package for 6 months (!) and the amount of patching one needs to remove the internal minilzo. I hardly think that upstream will accept any of this patching (did anyone try to send them upstream). Next updates of libvncserver/x11vnc will probably need to adjust/extend the minilzo patching again. And all that for blindly adhering to guidelines? I'm sure if presented to the FPC they would probably ack the use of minilzo as is. Fedora is currently even more upstream closer than 6 months before, so chances are that upstream proximity will win over other guidelines. And yes, I did have a check on how to remove minilzo in x11vnc and just see the work involved. Trivial OTOH, but not a small workload to maintain on the other. -- 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