[Bug 470914] Review Request: slv2 - An LV2 host library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Jan 3 11:59:34 UTC 2009


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=470914


Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |bugs.michael at gmx.net
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net>  2009-01-03 06:59:33 EDT ---
> License:        LGPLv2+

Web page says "Licensed under the GPL v2 or later for now".
File COPYING contains the GPL v2.
Only a few source files contain a LGPL header.
This suggests the project is:

 => License: GPLv2+


> Summary: An LV2 host library

Suggest dropping the "An ".


> %description    devel
> slv2-devel contains the headers and development libraries for slv2.

Suggest
"This package contains the headers and development libraries for SLV2."
for consistency and to avoid repeating the pkg name.


> %files
> %doc AUTHORS COPYING README
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)

%defattr ought to be moved one line up.


> %{_libdir}/*.a

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries


* The slv2.pc pkg-config file adds a redundant -L/usr/lib -lrdf from redland.pc


* 0.6.2 is available (still marked unstable, though)


* Run-time warning (in src/world.c) about Redland librdf not being new enough:

  $ lv2_list 
  Warning: Unable to create "trees" RDF storage.
  Performance can be improved by upgrading librdf.


* src/world.c contains hardcoded /usr/lib and /usr/local/lib paths
also on 64-bit platforms!


* The only real blockers:
  * licence
  * static lib
  * hardcoded lib paths

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list