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: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2006-05-06 06:37 EST ------- The 4th alternative sounds like the best one to me. In this case I don't think we need to standardise the .so filenames, since they are already under %{_libdir}/ctapi, making clear what they are and giving apps a unique way to enumerate all ctapi implementations available (all .so files under %{_libdir}/ctapi) So I say lets go with the 4th approach: -ctapi implementing libs go under %{_libdir}/ctapi -%{_libdir}/ctapi is owned by ctapi-common -ctapi-common drops a (64 and 32bit?) file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d -ctapi implementing libs must depend on ctapi-common(.arch?) Who wants to create the ctapi-common package? We should also think about a ctapi-devel package containing a unified ctapi.h ctbcs.h and maybe manpages (from the towitoko ctapi upstream) -- 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@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review