[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 16 18:51:55 UTC 2008
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 #9 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> 2008-12-16 13:51:54 EDT ---
> * 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.
I'll remove it as its long obsolete.
> * 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.
I'll speak to upstream to get this cleaned up.
> * Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
> the -devel package.
OK
> * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
> Note that some plugins have different licenses.
The library is little use with out plugins so I don't see the point in
splitting it up.
> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
>
> * Please make use of the %{name} macro.
>
> * The devel package must require openssl-devel (see iax2/remote.h)
Will fix
> * Weird provides:
> $ rpm -qv --provides opal
> ()(64bit) <--- This one
> g726()(64bit
> ...
See RHBZ 473084
> * Most libraries install into the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} , but not
> %{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}. Any reason you picked the latter way?
As per upstream.
> * Latest version is not packaged. opal-3.4.3 is available
Yes, but the current ekiga release depends on 3.4.2. When the new version of
ekiga comes out it will be upgraded too.
> * Fedora specific flag -O2 is overriden at certain instances by -Os. That needs
> fixed.
I'll add it to my upstream list.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list