[Bug 226210] Merge Review: opal

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Dec 16 18:51:55 UTC 2008

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #9 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2008-12-16 13:51:54 EDT ---

> * rpmlint complains:
>    opal.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-obsoletes openh323-devel
> Will this cause any problem in the future? I would say, let's put a version
> number just to be safe
>    opal-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> At least the license file can get into this.
>    opal-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided openh323-devel
> Is openh323 compatible with opal? If yes, you should provide it.

I'll remove it as its long obsolete.  

> * Remove the precompiled binaries during prep. So far I found:
>    ./configure.exe
>    ./samples/opalgw/messages.bin
>    ./plugins/LID/TigerJet/TjIpSys.dll
>    ./plugins/LID/CM_HID/CM_HID.dll
>    ./plugins/LID/VPB/libvpb.lib
>    ./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.dll
>    ./plugins/video/H.263-ffmpeg/ffmpeg/libavcodec.so
>    ./src/win32/vpbapi.lib: current ar archive
> Actually the ffmpeg stuff is patent encumbered. You should take that stuff off
> and provide a "clean" tarball for the SRPM.

I'll speak to upstream to get this cleaned up.

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


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

The library is little use with out plugins so I don't see the point in
splitting it up.

> * We prefer %defattr(-,root,root,-)
> * Please make use of the %{name} macro.
> * The devel package must require openssl-devel (see iax2/remote.h)

Will fix

> * Weird provides:
>    $ rpm -qv --provides opal
>    ()(64bit)      <--- This one
>    g726()(64bit
>    ...

See RHBZ 473084

> * Most libraries install into the directory %{_libdir}/%{name} , but not
> %{_libdir}/%{name}-%{version}. Any reason you picked the latter way?

As per upstream.

> * Latest version is not packaged. opal-3.4.3 is available

Yes, but the current ekiga release depends on 3.4.2. When the new version of
ekiga comes out it will be upgraded too.

> * Fedora specific flag -O2 is overriden at certain instances by -Os. That needs
> fixed.

I'll add it to my upstream list.

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

More information about the package-review mailing list