[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 rc040203 at freenet.de  2006-04-18 22:59 EST -------
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #15)

> > - 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.
I guess, I can't avoid to more direct: The amount of warnings qualifies this
piece of SW as "not ready for public use".

I would be willing to ignore them for an arbirary standard library, but I am not
willing to ignore them for a package using DLLs, being involved into booting.

> > - 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...).
Yes, these packages are also suffering from DLL hell. In particular, packaging
firefox/mozilla plugins is a PITA because of this.

But there still is a major difference between these packages and elektra:
They install their DLLs into /lib/<subdir> rsp. /usr/lib/<subdir>/plugins.


-- 
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.