[Bug 492945] Review Request: lv2-swh-plugins - LV2 ports of LADSPA swh plugins

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492945





--- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>  2009-04-23 14:52:25 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Fedora review lv2-swh-plugins-1.0.15-1.fc10.src.rpm 2008-04-23
> 

Thanks again!

> ! Some of the plugins have undefined symbols. This is OK if the
>   undefined symbols are available in the application that loads the
>   plugins, but it might be safer to link the plugins to the libraries
>   providing the missing symbols if this can not always be guaranteed.
> 

I made a patch to fix these issues. I also sent my modifications upstream via
email, since they don't have a bugtracker.

> ? The plugins from this package are all labelled with a -Linux suffix,
>   while this is not the case for the plugins from the other two plugin
>   packages. What is the reason for not being consistent among the
>   different packages?  

It is upstream's decision. There is no generic way of naming the plugins. There
are other plugins that I haven't packaged yet which have named their .so files
in their own way, like
  $pluginname.so
Some plugins even contain multiple .so files in the same directory. I don't
think it is worth to change the names manually. The plugin host applications
usually scan the %{_libdir}/lv2/ directory for plugins and dlopen them.

For instance, the lv2-calf-plugins made it to the rawhide repo, and it has its
own conventions.

Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-swh-plugins.spec
SRPM URL:
http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/lv2-swh-plugins-1.0.15-1.fc10.src.rpm

Changelog: - 1.0.15-2
- Fix unresolved symbols

-- 
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.