https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713 --- Comment #9 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #7) > (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #6) > > Also note that this is a fork of tomcat-native, which is already included in > > Fedora. > > Sure, but the reason for inclusion is here. Sure, but I would consider adding required changes to tomcat-native (if possible) instead of packaging a fork. (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #8) > * Usage of system.load will require much more patching It's 10-line patch, not that much IMHO. An example is provided in packaging guidelines I linked above. > * tomcat is putting its libraris directly to %{_libdir} too. As this is > for, I inclined to keep the same schema. That's a bug in tomcat-native. There is no reason to duplicate the same bug in another package. > Those two points are strongly connected, and I have been really thinking > which one to use. Really a lot. Tried this and yours agian mine and then > that.. At the end this was most strightforwad > * little of patching > * most imiliar to upstream behaviour > * most close to tomcat. > > Unless you insists, I would like to keep with this approach. The right way is the one described in packaging guidelines - not putting .so file directly in %{_libdir} and loading it using System.load(). But OFC Zbyszek has the final word on this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review