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=736717 --- Comment #5 from Dennis van Dok <dennisvd@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-25 17:58:41 EDT --- Hi Steve, thanks for your thorough reporting. I will give some short and direct answers now, but some things need more looking into and discussion with the developers. a) the spec file permission; don't know how it happened but will look into it. b) I'll look into the use of %{name} in the spec file. 1) the call to exit we got for free from flex, in case the parser bails out over some weird error condition. We will fix this if we haven't already. 2+3) I will clarify in the spec file what the rationale is behind having a 'interface' package rather than a 'devel' package. The gist of it is that a developer of a client program would not need to link his work with lcmaps.so, because that is delayed until run-time. Only the header files are needed. The header files are split up because some depend on openssl, and some on globus, but we don't want to force a developer to install the globus dependencies if he doesn't really need them. At run-time, liblcmaps.so is required for dlopen, so this shouldn't be in the devel package. This leaves the devel package to be virtually empty. Technically the interface packages could be renamed devel packages, but the current user base knows and uses the interface packages already. The licence file seems to be a leftover from the previous funding projects, I will have to discuss whether we can simply replace it with the normal ASL2.0 text. I will get back soon, and update the package. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review