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: mcs - A configuration file abstraction library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232342


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium

[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[EMAIL PROTECTED]




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2007-03-27 03:57 EST -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> > Requires(post): /sbin/ldconfig
> 
> Is automatic already because of "-p /sbin/ldconfig" in %post.
> 
> [...]
> 
> What I don't like about mcs is that they ship an autoheader/autoconf
> config header renamed to mcs_config.h and include it *always* from
> within their main API header. The definitions inside can cause
> unwanted redefinitions for applications that use mcs and autotools.
> I wanted to contact upstream about it when I tried mcs for Audacious 1.3,
> but have forgotten to do so.

Yes, that is bad, autoheader files should not be installed. But allas, things
happen. I always fix this by looking through the other header files and see what
defines (if any) from the autoheaderfile they use. And then I manually create a
very minimal config.h with those defines + any defines which might be of
interest to software using the lib, those are usually fine as the should have a
packagename prefix, (for example MCS_VERSION)

Ralf if you could fix the autoheader as I just described, then I'm more then
willing todo a review.



-- 
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
[email protected]
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to