[Bug 445980] Review Request: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser

[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: odpdom - Oversized Document Parser


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445980





------- Additional Comments From rpm at greysector.net  2008-05-19 14:26 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> If you're going to use the macro forms of commands line %{__make}, you should
> use %{__rm} as well.  Also, if you prefer %{buildroot} over $RPM_BUILD_ROOT,
> you should use %{optflags} instead of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS.  Just try to be
> consistent in your usage of macro forms.
>
> I note you're not using the dist tag.  I guess you maintain enough packages
> that you can handle the version juggling required when you don't use the dist
> tag.

I will add the dist tag (omitted by accident) and make macro usage consistent.

(In reply to comment #2)
> Well, as far as I checked this package
> - the original tarball does not provide any shared libraries, only
>   static archives are provided
> - odpdom-p4v.patch is applied to provide a shared library for Fedora

Actually that's odpdom-rpm.patch that does that. The -p4v patch comes from
p4vasp, which includes a modified odpdom. So in order to build p4vasp against
shared odpdom, I decided to patch odpdom in the same way, because p4vasp seems
to call that method.

(In reply to comment #5)
> Well, it certainly doesn't hurt to discuss things with the upstream
> developers.
> Rathann, do you know their opinions on the topic?

Not yet, but I will contact them.


-- 
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.