You're not reviewing the full diff of
request 1216987
, but the diff to the superseded
request 1208603
(Show full diff)
Overview
Loading...
Login required, please
login
in order to comment
reviewer
some questions
- the changes entry doesnt mention why we need the extra libraries. it would be useful to know in the future if we need to focus on keeping it
- how sure are we that the shared libraries will get bumped in sync? if they are likely to be bumped separately they need to go into different subpackages
- there is a
%ldconfig_scripts -n %{pkgname}macro now
reviewer
- "because upstream produces them". Basically, packages should not get stunted at the distro level just because you don't like the bike shed's color. Someone may grow a dependency later and then would be very upset if kbd-devel didn't behave the same as the upstream variant.
- Examination of the git log suggest the author is a serious automake user, and that makes it all the more likely we will be seeing independent bumps; in other words, libkbdfile.so.1 should be separate from libkeymap1.rpm.
author
source maintainer
libkbdfile1 is a private shared library. It does not have any includes, so it cannot be linked to a third party project. That is why I decided to not pack it separately.
(Well, I did not check that it is called from libkeymapfile1 or from the kbd itself. In the first case, the current layout makes sense. In the second case, it would be better to make it a part of kbd package itself.)
reviewer
target maintainer
waiting for feedback on review questiins - backlog
Login required, please
login
in order to comment
