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=470703 Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #38 from Matej Cepl <mcepl@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-10 12:48:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #35) > Matej: Though this is mostly a pre-nss-patch relic (current version of the nss > patch would not look for OpenSSL once NSS compat library is present) I believe > this is completely legitimate use of BuildConflicts. No, it is not ... the fact that I have three versions of one library installed on my computer doesn't mean that you have to one particular of them (and if you want me to uninstall openssl, then please fix mysql, postifx, opal, nash, and dovecot ;-)). Either select the right one (which is what you do in your patch anyway), or add some ./configure option for it (--with-crypto={openssl,nss,gnutls} or something of that kind). And of course more important is that this line is there only to annoy people who would actually want to build this package on their own computer ... it doesn't make any sense for building in mock/koji, and it is totally unnecessary -- when I remove it and rebuild package, resulting package doesn't require openssl anyway: [matej@viklef redhat]$ rpm -qR links /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh /usr/sbin/alternatives /usr/sbin/alternatives /usr/sbin/alternatives libX11.so.6()(64bit) libbz2.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgpm.so.2()(64bit) libjpeg.so.62()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libnss_compat_ossl.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0()(64bit) libpng12.so.0(PNG12_0)(64bit) libtiff.so.3()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) [matej@viklef redhat]$ > Seriously, if you believe this is a review blocker, please re-read the > guidelines and elaborate on what use of BuildConflicts seems legitimate to you. I have no clue what BuildConflicts is good for, and I have never seen it to be used before, but this is certainly not the case (see above). > Also, thank you for bringing this up once the review was finished, even though > this was present in the SPEC file since my first revision. I don't think there is any duty to be silent when I see stupidity in a package which is soon to come to Fedora -- I haven't thought it is necessary to review this package because I believed that ovasik will do proper job on it as usually he does. Only when I tried to rebuild this package on my computer I got hit by this, and so I jumped here before the damage would be hard to fix. -- 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