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: ntop


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=197198





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-30 02:59 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> to save some time and maybe some help :) 

Well, I regret having to say this, but, ATM, this package is quite far from
being ready for approval.

> rpmlint output:
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SPECS]$ rpmlint 
> /home/mjk/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/ntop-3.2-2.i386.rpm
I presume, you'll be addressing them ... ;)

> I wasn't sure if the *.so files should be split into a devel package or not. 
Well, this package applies a rather weird SONAME'ing scheme.

=> The %{_libdir}/lib*-<version>.so's should be part of the main package.
=> The %{_libdir}/lib*.so (without version inside) should be made part of a
devel package or not be installed at all. Without the package providing an API
(headers) to the libraries, installing the lib*.so's would be pointless.

=> The *.so inside of the plugin dir seem to be needed.

Finally, ... given what I see, I am not sure, I want to see this package in
Fedora :(

-- 
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