[Bug 187430] Review Request: elektra

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: elektra


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=187430





------- Additional Comments From pertusus at free.fr  2006-04-18 18:43 EST -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> - The include file names are too generic to justfy installing them into
> $(includedir)

I do agree for kdb.h. Others may be acceptable. I believe the reviewer
might make a choice here.
 
> - Way too many warnings to provide sufficient trust to allow it to be installed
> into /lib

I don't think the issue is with trusted/untrusted. The issue is should
this package be needed before /usr is mounted. Currently as nothing 
requires elektra during the boot process the whole elektra stuff could
be in /usr. But it is a long term goal for elektra to be in such position,
so maybe it could be kept in /lib?

> - IMO, installing DLLs to /lib is a fundamental design flaw. I refuse to approve
> any package doing so. Use ordinary, properly versioned shared libs, instead of
> trying to introduce DLL hell to the Linux bootsystem.

The use of dlopened libraries for elektra backends may make sense.
There are other examples in fedora (pam, iptable, firefox plugins...).
What seems more dubious is to drop those dlopened files in /lib.
Especially since there exists a clean way to do that with libtool
(as I described above). This issue is the same if things go to /usr/lib
instead of /lib.

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