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=453422 --- Comment #27 from David Halik <auralvance@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-12 17:30:10 EDT --- @Nikolay I looked into the symlinking issue. There was a bug open on this upstream that has now been fixed and allows for proper symlinking to the mozilla wrapper script. http://bugzilla.songbirdnest.com/show_bug.cgi?id=13265 1.1 is due out in the next week or two and this fix will be in it. @kwizart I implemented some more fixes and spun rev 3. It's located here: http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird.spec http://rpm.rutgers.edu/fedora/songbird-1.0.0-3.fc10.src.rpm The mozilla startup script I just discussed sets up the proper LD paths to ensure that songbird only uses the provided internal libraries, but I see what you're getting at with the other package provides. I'm looking at the other mozilla packages to ensure that songbird is filtered and doesn't end up providing libxul.so (and others) to the general package population. I also trimmed the vendor source ball to only the required packages. The src.rpm is a much more managable size now. With the next release coming out soon I'm going to try and work with upstream (stevel) to get a reduced size tarball next time. Right now the two major bugs I see are the symlinking wrapper issue in 13265 (which will be fixed soon) and filtering the internal provides to only the necessary ones. Anything else stand out as an obvious problem? -- 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