Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=603481 --- Comment #14 from Christoph Wickert <[email protected]> 2010-07-29 05:30:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > Which libs linked against it? I assume that rpmlint complained that they were > unused? You are right, libpcsclite.so.1 is unused (although rpmlint didn't complain). > I think my main comment to the package naming/separation is that upstream > consider the library the primary product of the project. xfreerdp is just a > demo-sample-toy-playground. Remmina (and similar projects if there are any) > are > the primary users of the library. Hmm, I was under the impression that xfreerdp was supposed to be the counterpart of the rdesktop binary and the main user. > Ok, so remembering the arguments and how you and I did it I now tend to > prefer: > > a "freerdp" package that contains /usr/bin/xfreerdp and provides "xfreerdp". > > a "freerdp-libs" package that contains the main libs ... and perhaps > everything > else > > a "freerdp-libs-devel" with headers for the libs (though it seems like it > usually is done as "freerdp-devel"?) Sounds fine for me. The devel package should be named freerdp-devel and adding a virtual "Provides: xfreerdp" is a good idea, although it's not strictly needed. Regarding the plugins, the package should IMHO just be called freerdp-plugins. Or you package them completely separated as freerdp-plugin-foo. > Implementing MS protocols is actually not very funny ;-) Some people are just masochistic. ;) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
