[Bug 188542] Review Request: hylafax

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: hylafax


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=188542


fedora at christoph-wickert.de changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|fedora at christoph-wickert.de |nobody at fedoraproject.org
               Flag|fedora-review?              |




------- Additional Comments From fedora at christoph-wickert.de  2007-11-20 13:45 EST -------
(In reply to comment #62)
> There is also two program founds:
> WARNING, /usr/lib/sendmail does not seem to be an executable program;
> WARNING, /sbin/mgetty does not seem to be an executable program;
> I don't knwo if it will change to have them at build instead of runtime....

Having them at runtime is enough.

> Since you have set $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (and they are used), you might be abble to
remove
> %define debug_package %{nil}
> So the resulting binaries get stripped

But then we still have an empty and therefore useless debuginfo package.


(In reply to comment #61)
> Christoph, are you still interested in this? Seems this takes much to much time;
> see also https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17

Howard, I suggest you focus on this review instead of opening another one at
rpmfusion. You will run into the same problems there as you are doing here.

> Maybe someone else is willing to review this?

Basically I'm still interested in this review and in (co)maintaining this
package, But there still is a lot of issues with it.

Biggest of all is the naming issue. As I said before this package should be
named hylafax+, because when Paul submits hylafax for review we will get in
trouble. What about packages sitting on top of hylafax(+), e. g. calpi4hylafax?
How do we make sure that we are not getting a version race between hylafax+ and
hylafax? I have no idea how to handle this, I asked on fedora-maintainers-list
but the discussion never was really finished, see
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-July/msg00308.html

Then we still have no debug information (why?), the
unused-direct-shlib-dependency, some undefined non weak symbols and the problems
Nicolas mentioned in comment #62.

So I think I giving up this review. Sorry, maybe someone else is more
successful. I'm still willing to help wherever I can.

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