https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016221 --- Comment #3 from Zvi "Viz" Effron <viz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- SPEC: http://fedorapkgs.flippedperspective.com/courier-authlib/0.66.0-2/SPECS/courier-authlib.spec SRPM: http://fedorapkgs.flippedperspective.com/courier-authlib/0.66.0-2/SRPMS/courier-authlib-0.66.0-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji f19 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6035077 Koji f20 scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6035070 I think I've addressed all of the points above in a new build (except for #11 which I respond to below). 11. There's no reason we couldn't do a separate -authdaemon package, but it deviates more from the upstream spec files. It seems that some of the courier programs (e.g. courier-imap) don't need authdaemond, so there may be some interest in forming a separate package to install it. I'm not sure it warrants deviating further from upstream. Thoughts? 13. Currently the upstream provided unit file is just a wrapper around the sysvinit script. I've changed that in the new build, and have recommended the change to upstream. Notes: In the previous bug for this package (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=486570) there was a discussion of placing libs being in %{_libdir} instead of %{_libdir}/%{name}. I brought this up with upstream, and they pointed out than many packages install groups of libraries to %{_libdir}/%{name}. They also suggested that an ld.so.conf.d entry is not needed because everything that uses those libraries loads them via dlopen. However, when I tried to build upstream's latest courier-imap package it would fail unless I included the .la files. So for the time being, I'm including the ld.so.conf file and running ldconfig. When I take a look at packaging courier-imap, I'll see if I can figure out why the .la files are needed for it to find the shared libs. This only seems to be a problem when building packages that rely on courier-authlib, though. Should the ownership of the ld.so.conf file and the runs of ldconfig be placed on the -devel subpackage instead of the base package? -- 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