[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 #14 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert at fedoraproject.org> 2010-07-29 05:30:06 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> Which libs linked against it? I assume that rpmlint complained that they were
> unused?

You are right, libpcsclite.so.1 is unused (although rpmlint didn't complain).

> 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.

Hmm, I was under the impression that xfreerdp was supposed to be the
counterpart of the rdesktop binary and the main user.

> 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"?)

Sounds fine for me. The devel package should be named freerdp-devel and adding
a virtual "Provides: xfreerdp" is a good idea, although it's not strictly
needed.

Regarding the plugins, the package should IMHO just be called freerdp-plugins.
Or you package them completely separated as freerdp-plugin-foo.

> Implementing MS protocols is actually not very funny ;-)    

Some people are just masochistic. ;)

-- 
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.