[Bug 189892] Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun May 21 10:24:02 UTC 2006


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: dssi - Disposable Soft Synth Interface


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189892





------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com  2006-05-21 06:24 EST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> After poking things a bit more, I think dssi-devel should Depend: on
> alsa-lib-devel, ladspa-devel, and liblo-devel. But not jack-devel, the dssi API
> itself does not use jack.

Done.

> Not so sure the examples package needs a versioned dependency on the main
> package. Any other dssi plugins wouldn't do so.

The difference is that the examples are bundled with the main package sources.
I don't think it hurts to keep them in sync.
 
> And since its just a header file, I don't think the devel package actually needs
> to depend on the main package at all... (This would prevent mock from having to
> d/l and install dssi, which pulls in jack...)

Done.  I've also moved COPYING to the devel package, since it only applies to
the header file.  The README file covers everything else.

> If you really wanted to reduce dependency bloat, you could split jack-dssi-host
> off into its own package, isolating the jack dependency, but I really don't
> think its worth going quite that far.

Not done :-)

> Just rm-ing the .la files in %install seems marginally cleaner to me. And is
> what most other packages seem to do.

Done.

I've also fixed the .pc file problem.

Thanks for your help!

 Updated bits here....

Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi.spec
SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/FC5/dssi-0.9.1-3.src.rpm

AG


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




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list