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=749132 --- Comment #6 from Ricardo Rocha <rocha.porto@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-03 05:54:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > > > > The main one for now is dpm-dsi-libs or not since then I can actually > > > install to check. > > > > I added a dependency on the base package, following this: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package > > > > but this means also the rest (daemon scripts, sysconfig, etc) will get > > installed. It's ok, but would be better to break it into -libs and depend on > > that one instead? > > Breaking out a libs pkg can makes sense, it means you will > get the 32bit libs in the 64 bit repos. > > However is anyone ever going to want the libraries and not the service and > start up scripts. People are unlikely to link to this library I > would have thought? Up to you. I'll leave it as it is then, noone should be linking against the library. > Is gssapi_openssl.h not just an old version of > > $ rpm -qf /usr/include/globus/gssapi.h > globus-gssapi-gsi-devel-7.8-1.fc15.x86_64 Don't think so. The original is part of the globus source: http://viewcvs.globus.org/viewcvs.cgi/gsi/gssapi/source/library/gssapi_openssl.h?view=markup Ricardo -- 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