[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax

[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=188542


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
         AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu           |nobody at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|fedora-review?              |




--- Comment #101 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-10-14 15:51:04 EDT ---
As far as I can tell, that's not even the same hylafax.  Which underpins the
reason why this package will never be approved (by me, at least) without being
renamed to hylafax+ as has been repeatly requested in this ticket.  Since
comment #83 indicates that this won't happen, I don't even know why I still
have this ticket assigned to myself.

So I'm just unassigning myself and returning this to the review queue.  As I do
that, I'll make a few notes:

The package in comment #99 still builds OK in today's rawhide and rpmlint
really doesn't complain about much.  In fact, I'll just post it here:

hylafax.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.hourly/hylafax    
hylafax.x86_64: E: executable-marked-as-config-file /etc/cron.daily/hylafax     
hylafax.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so.5.2.9
HYLAFAX_VERSION_STRING                     
hylafax.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libfaxserver.so.5.2.9 /lib64/libm.so.6                      
hylafax.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
/usr/lib64/libfaxutil.so.5.2.9 /lib64/libm.so.6                        

The first two and last two are not problematic; I'm not really sure about the
third one.  It was indicated that this should be easy to fix, but I can't
suggest how to fix it.

The Conflicts: with mgetty-sendfax is problematic according to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Conflicts.  I'd say that the best way
out is to use alternatives as recommended by those guidelines, which requires
coordination with the owner of the mgetty package (jskala at redhat.com) who
should probably be added as a CC if this starts moving forward again.

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