[Bug 177584] Review Request: zaptel

[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: zaptel


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=177584





------- Additional Comments From dwmw2 at redhat.com  2006-10-13 04:51 EST -------
Probably wants to drop the Provides: zaptel-kmod-common

Probably also wants to drop the loading of modules in the initscript, since udev
should handle that kind of stuff by the time we've finished.

Why are we building with -fsigned-char on PPC? That's scary and doesn't match
the rest of the system. It's usually a sign of buggy code -- where do we assume
that 'char' is signed, and why? Let's just fix it instead.

Utils should probably be going into %{_sbindir} instead of /sbin.

What is the licence on the OCT6114-128D.ima firmware file?

ifup-hdlc attempts to use 'sethdlc', which isn't present or in Requires.

Consider being more biarch-friendly by putting libraries into their own package
(which can then be install for both 32-bit and 64-bit simultaneously), while the
other bits like configuration and initscript (if you still have one) move into
the zaptel-utils package.

udev rules give ownership of all zap devices to asterisk, but that user doesn't
exist. Perhaps we should have a 'zaptel' group, and add both Asterisk and
OpenPBX to that group? You'll need to create the zaptel group for yourself in
the zaptel package, and the asterisk-zaptel and openpbx-zaptel packages would
each need to add their PBX user to the zaptel group. Or can someone think of a
better solution?

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