[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack

[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: ctapi-cyberjack


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369





------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl  2006-05-01 07:41 EST -------
I see,

In that case the libctapi-xx.so shouldn't be versioned again, but then we have
the problem of the ifd handler linking to it, or we could once again make the
ifd-handler staticly linked to the ctapi part, but that would mean having
essentially the same code on your HD twice. Still I believe this is the best,
which effectivly means that you can undo all the makefile changes as upstream's
makefile then does seem todo the right thing after all, sorry about all this.

This might actually all workout nicely since with the ifd handler staitcly
linked it will not auto require and has no reason to manually require the main
package allowing for it to be installed seperatly.

Did you already drop the versioning in your next try (and link the ifd handler
staticly against ctapi-xxx?) ifso let me know and I'll do a full review as /
when time permits. If not, please post yet another version.

Also I can acutally read (and speak a bit) German, but your German is no doubt
better, could you copy the relevants parts avout the libctapi-xxxx.so being the
standard convention from the standard to a txt file and attach that?

Then I can review the standard and file a bug against openct. I personally
believe that since these .so files are unversioned and dlopened they should be
put under /usr/lib/ctapi/ instead of in plain /usr/lib does the standard say
anything about this?

Sorry about all this ping - pong you've picked a hard one to start with and I
want to get this right, currently the towitoko drivers aren't packaged and if
we're going to set a precedent on  how to handle this I would like to set a good
precedent.


-- 
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.