[Bug 428568] Review Request: synfig - Synfig is a vector based 2D animation package

[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=428568





--- Comment #34 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak at v3.sk>  2009-03-19 06:46:34 EDT ---
A few comments and a new package:

1.) Please, no more backtraces of crashes. (Thanks for them though.) I am aware
of the problem.

Unfortunately, I can't reproduce it and suspect it's x86_64 specific. I can't
do much about it unless I gain access to x86_64, or will be able to do scratch
builds against synfig.

I promise I'll deal with the problem once the package is approved, so that
synfigstudio (bug #479527) builds. According to review guidelines [1] this is
not a review blocker:

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

2.) synfig_module.cfg
(In reply to comment #28)
> * First there is the synfig_module.cfg needs:
> usually libtool-ltdl modules doesn't need to be hardcoded in such file. That
> will be hard to extend the functionnalities of synfig if we need to register
> every module using this.

I'm not doing anything about this now. synfig_module.cfg is quite easily
machine-modifiable, the same way as shell(5) or maybe even grub.cfg.

It could be argued that it's useless and that synfig should dlopen all dsos
from a directory, but on the other hand synfig_module.cfg gives the opportunity
to disable modules w/o deleting them. I'm not going to deviate from upstream
here, especially in a case like these, where it would remove (probably not much
used) functionality.

3.) libtool
(In reply to comment #28)
> * Then, it seems that the modules implementation settle on the needs of the
> libtool .la files. This is very annoying and needs to be fixed.  

That's a design decision. Libtool is useful here, and I highly doubt you'll
convince upstream not to use it. All I can do here is include the .la files in
-devel to allow external modules, though it would probably violate the
guidelines.

--

Nicolas, if I understand your concerns -- are you planning to package a module
separately? Are there any external modules? (or you're planning to build
mod_libavcodec?).

(In reply to comment #30)
> But in when I'm reviewing a package, then i consider the software as a whole.
> (guidelines includes usability tests after all).

Usability or external linkability? Seriously, while there are minor concerns
about adding external modules, the package works well (apart from the x86_64
crash issue) for its intended purpose.

> Now I've never said that the first issue was a blocker nor that the above
> remarks constitutes a full review, indeed.

May I humbly request a full review then? This has been open for some time now,
and I'd be very glad if it could have some productive outcome.

--

(In reply to comment #33)
> warning: "/usr/lib/debug/usr/bin/synfig.debug": The separate debug info file
> has no debug info

The new package fixes the use of optflags, so that debugging symbols are
generated correctly.

SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/synfig.spec
SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/synfig-0.61.09-3.fc11.src.rpm

-- 
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.