Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: samba https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226387 ------- Additional Comments From ssorce@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-29 12:27 EST ------- Thanks for the feedback, it is very valuable. I will clean up as much as possible the spec file, and thanks for the patch, makes things easier. Some counter-remarks :-) - We have GPL, LGPL and something like MIT/X11 in the mix, not everything is GPL, is there a way to represent this? GPL v2 or later woule be inaccurate. - Why did you remove the (pre) for samba-common Requires? Irt was there for a specific purpose connected to upgrades. - as far as I know we don't use libtool, I will check if it is really required. - I was required to split out libsmbcliente-devel as that's how the build system recognize the fact we need a multilib package for 64bit archs, I was also told that, to package .a files I must create a separate -static package. What should I do? Just drop the -static and never ship the libsmbclient.a library ? P.S.: it would be much easier to parse the patch if you avoid cosmetic changes, or if you provide 2 separate patches, one for cosmetic changes and the other for the real ones. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review