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=543566 --- Comment #7 from Jean-Francois Saucier <jfsaucier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-06 16:27:15 EDT --- Spec URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/tsocks.spec SRPM URL: http://jfsaucier.fedorapeople.org/packages/tsocks-1.8-0.5.beta5.fc12.src.rpm Thank you for the pointer on PPC, I will try to contact him soon. > fix_lib_path.patch I used this trick to differentiate i386 and x86_64 library path since I have seen this code in ALSA source a long time ago. In this case, I think that your simple solution is much better than this old trick! I have updated the patch with this one. > "man 8 tsocks" refers to /lib/libtsocks.so The upstream author recommend putting the library directly in /lib to be available at boot time. I don't personally think it's the good place, so I changed the library folder and just fixed the documentation. > Some additional run-time testing ... Doesn't work You are right, this option didn't work as planned. I use tsocks since four years and never used that feature! The problem is directly at the start of upstream bash script. I have fixed and tested it Also, I have changed the patchs file name to be more consistent with guidelines. I have also removed INSTALL from %doc as I don't think it's necessary. rpmlint give the same warnings/errors and package build fine in mock. Thank you for your feedback! -- 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