[Bug 459637] Review Request: svxlink - Repeater controller and EchoLink (simplex or repeater)

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 3 00:43:12 UTC 2008


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=459637





--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-02 19:43:10 EDT ---
The shared-lib-calls-exit bits are just pointing out an oddity in the API of
the library; generally the caller would want to handle errors itself instead of
simply having the library exit, but I suspect that most of these libraries are
for internal use anyway.  If anything, they'd be something to report upstream;
they're not blockers.

The unused-direct-shlib-dependency complaints are valid, but not really
significant.  I don't see any libraries there that wouldn't be pulled in by qt
itself, so there's not really any inefficiency.

The static libraries will need to go in their own -static packages; they are
not permitted in the -devel packages alongside shared libraries.  Preferably
they aren't included at all, but that's up to you.

Many (all?) of the *so files are duplicated between the base and -devel
packages.  It looks like you used the usual pattern for capturing just the
versioned .so files, but this package uses some odd library versioning so for
some reason the library version appears before the ".so" as well as after it on
some files.  I don't pretend to understand why, but I guess you'll need to
change the patterns used for capturing the versioned and unversioned .so files.

The COPYRIGHT file mentions a gsm directory with a different copyright, but I
don't see it in the package.  I guess the package now just uses an external
library.

I don't see any licensing information on the sounds.  Can you verify the
license?

-- 
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 package-review mailing list