[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal

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

 



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=226210





--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <orcanbahri@xxxxxxxxx>  2008-12-16 13:18:51 EDT ---
Here's the full review:

* rpmlint complains:
   opal.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323-devel
Will this cause any problem in the future? I would say, let's put a version
number just to be safe
   opal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
At least the license file can get into this.
   opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel
Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.


* Remove the precompiled binaries during prep. So far I found:
   ./configure.exe
   ./samples/opalgw/messages.bin
   ./plugins/LID/TigerJet/TjIpSys.dll
   ./plugins/LID/CM_HID/CM_HID.dll
   ./plugins/LID/VPB/libvpb.lib
   ./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.dll
   ./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.so
   ./src/win32/vpbapi.lib: current ar archive
Actually the ffmpeg stuff is patent encumbered. You should take that stuff off
and provide a "clean" tarball for the SRPM.

* Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
the -devel package.

* Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
Note that some plugins have different licenses.

* We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)

* Please make use of the %{name} macro.

* The devel package must require openssl-devel (see iax2/remote.h)

* Weird provides:
   $ rpm -qv --provides opal
   ()(64bit)      <--- This one
   g726()(64bit
   ...

* Most libraries install into the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} , but not
%{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}. Any reason you picked the latter way?

* Latest version is not packaged. opal-3.4.3 is available

* Fedora specific flag -O2 is overriden at certain instances by -Os. That needs
fixed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

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