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=476460 --- Comment #12 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-25 01:22:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11) > Ok, I'm going to jettison start.sh. /var/run/milter, /var/log/milter and create > a milter-base package for the python milters that use it. Is there a better > way than having a package own one tiny shell script and two directories? > > That will remove those objections to pymilter (and start.sh truly is cruft if > you don't use it). - Well, are /var/run/milter and /var/log/milter directories supposed to be used also by other applications than pymilter? On Fedora there are already some srpms named *milter*. Would you know why none of these packages own these two directories? If you are unsure, I think it is better that these two directories should be owned by pymilter. > I define python because I need to build pymilter for python versions other than > the system default. For instance, on EL4, the system python is 2.3, but the > production milter requires python2.4. Both python and python modules are > easily built to coexist in multiple versions. (Of course, that argues for > cutting start.sh again - so it's history.) Would it be acceptable if an %ifdef > excludes the python redefinition for fedora? > > The version dependency is only redundant if building only for Fedora. Would it > be acceptable if I %ifdef away the dependency for Fedora? - If you want to maintain pymilter also on EL-4, okay. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review