[Bug 546169] Review Request: libtar-ng : tar library

[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=546169





--- Comment #13 from Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at gmail.com>  2009-12-11 05:27:30 EDT ---
1) See my reply to your thread on fedora-devel-list


2) Quoting from comment 10:

> Next time, investigate before you say something!

> I really have a feeling you are trying to be more of  a blocker
> than a contributor.  

:-/  Fix your attitude, please.


3) Package is not ready yet. It would be insane to approve it or what is
offered at the libtar-ng project site. I consider myself another blocker as I
see multiple issues:

* It conflicts with "libtar" not just all file names, but also in the SONAME.

* The src.rpm does not even attempt at trying to resolve the conflicts with
libtar.

* Mind you, the original libtar maintainer has written he might want to return
to maintaining _his_ libtar, but based on an already started albeit unfinished
rewrite. This asks for further conflicts if you are serious about making your
libtar-ng use a libtar ABI+API.

* Packaged tarball only adds a README.new in an ambiguous way as the COPYRIGHT
and README files have not been touched (despite having received a fresh file
timestamp). The new web page is not mentioned anywhere. Instead, references to
old web pages are still found.

* Hints: Remove the superfluous autom4te.cache directory and their contents
prior to packaging up the libtar-ng tarball. Cuts the tarball size in half. 
Additionally, prefer bzip2 over gzip.

-- 
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.