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=770283 --- Comment #4 from Tomasz Torcz <zdzichu@xxxxxx> 2012-01-01 16:49:53 EST --- Hi Ivan, Thanks for your review. In -3, I've corrected everything except one thing. You are right about -devel package containing almost nothing. I've did it because rpmlint complained that libuptimed.so should go into separate package. During testing I've found out that uptimed works fine without this .so file. And after some analysis, it seems that library is here only because both uptimed (daemon) and uprecords (client) use the same functions. No other program is expected to use this API Therefore I'd rather drop this unversioned .so and -devel package. Would it be OK? Current spec: Spec URL: http://pipebreaker.pl/dump/uptimed.spec SRPM URL: http://pipebreaker.pl/dump/uptimed-0.3.16-3.fc16.src.rpm Scratch : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3613084 -- 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