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: keyutils - Kernel key management userspace utilities


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190664





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-05-04 23:22 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
Looks *much* better now.

> This should fix everything barring the "weird" library naming - with that, I 
> followed the Ulrich Drepper guide to library naming.
Well, how comes the rest of the world is not following this proposal?

The only thing that matters is the SONAME, the library's filename is largely
ignorable (c.f. info libtool, for why this naming is considered harmful).

>  Btw, did you mean a 
> literal '*' in the name of a library?
Nope, your are encoding the rpm's Release-tag into the library name. I am
building under fc4 and changed the spec's Release:-tag into FE conforming:
Release: 1%{?dist}

With this, I end up with
 /lib/libkeyutils-1.1.1.fc4.so

=> Bug in your Makefile: The spec's Release tag overrides the Makefile's RELEASE
variable.

Further (minor) issue:
# rpm -qvlp keyutils-libs-devel-1.1-1.fc4.i386.rpm
...
/usr/lib/libkeyutils.so -> //lib/libkeyutils.so.1
...
Note the double slash at the beginning. I am not aware about this being harmful
under Linux, but under other OS it is harmful.

Further general issue:
* Shipping a static library (Discouraged with FE).

-- 
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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to