[Bug 690038] Review Request: ompl - The Open Motion Planning Library

[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=690038

--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-04-27 10:06:27 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> I contacted upstream about the soname, they accidentally omitted it from the
> release.  I've patched in a library version and soversion consistent with what
> will be added in future releases.

OK, that's great. However, is the soversion really supposed to be identical to
the package version, i.e. does the library's ABI change with every new release?
In this case, all potential packages depending on this library had do be
rebuilt every time you update the package. This seems to be a bit odd.


> The python bindings can't be built without pygccxml and pyplusplus.  Neither of
> these python modules are packaged in Fedora.

Ah, right. 

The package looks good now and could be approved. However, please ask upstream
to shed some light on their soname scheme, as it could cause some problems in
the future.

-- 
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.