[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal

[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=226210





--- Comment #25 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-07-03 09:35:16 EDT ---
> Anyhow, I'll ask for the 4th time (comments #6, #10, #17 and #24):

AFAICS the only things I didn't directly address directly are as follows:
Comment #6

> At least the license file can get into this.
>    opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel

Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th

> Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.

No, its not compatible.

> * Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
> the -devel package.

Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th

> * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
> Note that some plugins have different licenses.

Possibly but there's never been a request for them, alot of the samples don't
work well so they end up causing more issues than their contribute.

Comment #10

> Ok, How about the samples?

See comment above.

> Btw, currently the "MPEG4 Part 2" plugin is disabled for obvious reasons. Shall
> we include it in a freeworld package at rpmfusion? Is there any benefit in
> that?

Possibly but out of scope for this.

Comment #17

Already addressed in other parts of the bug.

Comment #24 

Already addressed in other parts of the bug.
> Anyhow, I'll ask for the 4th time (comments #6, #10, #17 and #24):

AFAICS the only things I didn't directly address directly are as follows:
Comment #6

> At least the license file can get into this.
>    opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel

Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th

> Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.

No, its not compatible.

> * Please package the docs directory. I think it makes more sense to put it in
> the -devel package.

Fixed in cvs as of Jan 6th

> * Shall we package samples and plugins (possibly in different subpackages)?
> Note that some plugins have different licenses.

Possibly but there's never been a request for them, alot of the samples don't
work well so they end up causing more issues than their contribute.

Comment #10

> Ok, How about the samples?

See comment above.

> Btw, currently the "MPEG4 Part 2" plugin is disabled for obvious reasons. Shall
> we include it in a freeworld package at rpmfusion? Is there any benefit in
> that?

Possibly, but out of scope for this.

Comment #17

Already addressed in other parts of the bug.

Comment #24 

Already addressed in other parts of the bug.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.