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=450050 --- Comment #15 from W. Michael Petullo <mike@xxxxxxxx> 2009-07-17 19:57:07 EDT --- Regarding reopening #511387, that's fine. I pushed hard for a while to get this in Fedora. In fact, I wrote the original autotools patch and helped the upstream maintainer with autotools before he integrated the patch for 0.7. That being said, I do not have a good solution to the issues raised on the fedora-packaging mailing list; see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-February/msg00047.html especially: > Unrelated to this, libcgi maintainer should not have chosen to use libcgi.so.1 as the > soname without upstream's approval. -- Mr. Mierzejewski (later in this mail thread) Progress was stuck because 1) I don't think that we should ship a shared library name that is different that what upstream intends 2) we can't have two packages with the same shared library name and 3) I did not feel like asking the developer to rename his project due to one distribution's preferences. I'd like to see cgilib packaged. I just did not have the time to work through this. I did invest a lot of time to get my autotools work in, so I would like to cgilib in Fedora eventually. -- 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