[Bug 697326] Review Request: libisoburn - Library to enable creation and expansion of ISO-9660 filesystems

[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=697326

--- Comment #7 from Robert Scheck <redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de> 2011-09-14 05:28:05 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Although the subpackage xorisso implicitly depends on libisoburn, it doesn't
> require the exact base package it was built with. This may not be a problem. 
> It doesn't include the copyright and license, and strictly speaking this is 
> covered by the base package, but as it is not named after the base package it 
> might be better to include these files separately in this package.

I can include the copyright/license file(s) into the xorisso subpackage.

> After installing libisoburn on a CentOS 5 box, rpmlint reports the following:
> 
> libisoburn.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libisoburn.so.1.69.0 /usr/lib64/libz.so.1
> libisoburn.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency
> /usr/lib64/libisoburn.so.1.69.0 /lib64/libacl.so.1
> 
> This suggests that upstream should review the dependencies and maybe drop the
> -lz and -lacl.

I will review this.

> Final comment: there seems to be another newer upstream release, 1.1.4.

Yes, libisoburn releases quite often. As all of the updates were just minor
so far, I'm tempted to wait if somebody is doing a qualified review before I
am it updating once more.


(In reply to comment #6)
> Unfortunately, it leads to problems regularly. Either when users install
> something without running a full update first. Or when they explicitly apply > an update (such as "yum update xorisso") without letting the package 
> installation tool apply *all* available updates. Sometimes the users do that 
> only because broken dependencies make it impossible (or very difficult) to 
> apply all updates.

There is no need to explicitly depend on a specific version at run-time, 
because upstream cares about ABI compatibility and bumps soname if needed.

> A dependency on /usr/bin/pkg-config is is automatic at least since several
> releases of Fedora.

Yes, but not at EPEL - and this package also will go into EPEL.

-- 
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.