[Bug 433642] Review Request: gnuradio - Software defined radio framework

[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: gnuradio - Software defined radio framework
Alias: gnuradio-review

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433642





------- Additional Comments From lkundrak at redhat.com  2008-03-05 02:43 EST -------
10.) gnuradio-devel:

/usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core-qa.so
/usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core-qa.so.0
/usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core-qa.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core.so
/usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core.so.0
/usr/lib64/libgnuradio-core.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libgr_audio_alsa.so
/usr/lib64/libgr_audio_alsa.so.0
/usr/lib64/libgr_audio_alsa.so.0.0.0
/usr/lib64/libgromnithread.so
/usr/lib64/libgromnithread.so.0
/usr/lib64/libgromnithread.so.0.0.0

Why do you pack shared libraries in -devel? -devel should not be required for
vital package functionality!

Hint: In most cases, *.so belong to -devel. Versioned ones never do.

11.) gnuradio-doc; maybe this is not a problem, just a question:
You have directory /usr/share/doc/usrp-3.1.1 
The package that you build is called gnuradio-usrp
Wouldn't it make sense to either rename the package to usrp, or the doc
directory to gnuradio-usrp-3.1.1?

(given what are the filenames in that package, I'd go for the first and would
put the usrp documentation into that package)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.