[Bug 603481] Review Request: freerdp - remote desktop protocol client

[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=603481

--- Comment #13 from Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> 2010-07-28 21:19:34 EDT ---
> I'm surprised to see the libs still link against libpcsclite.so.1 and
> linux-vdso.so.1 they were available during build.

Which libs linked against it? I assume that rpmlint complained that they were
unused?

> This means that xfreerdp is the only working implementation of freerdp, right?
> One more reason to have it in the freerdp binary package.

I think my main comment to the package naming/separation is that upstream
consider the library the primary product of the project. xfreerdp is just a
demo-sample-toy-playground. Remmina (and similar projects if there are any) are
the primary users of the library.

Ok, so remembering the arguments and how you and I did it I now tend to prefer:

a "freerdp" package that contains /usr/bin/xfreerdp and provides "xfreerdp".

a "freerdp-libs" package that contains the main libs ... and perhaps everything
else

a "freerdp-libs-devel" with headers for the libs (though it seems like it
usually is done as "freerdp-devel"?)

I will try to make up my mind ...

> > The docs in the tar is so outdated and misleading
> > that they are worse than nothing.
> 
> Another thing to fix upstream. Yeah, I know, writing documentation sucks,
> coding is more fun. ;)    

Implementing MS protocols is actually not very funny ;-)

-- 
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.