Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ecryptfs-utils - Linux eCryptfs utilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=218556 kevin@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-06-07 19:24 EST ------- Thanks for looking at this! We had gotten rid of the rpath in the past... looks like it's crept back. Will get that fixed. >1) keyutils, openssl, pam requirements should be superfluous - library >dependencies take care of this ok. Removed. >2) kernel requires are tricky. Generally, we do > >Conflicts: kernel < 2.6.19 > >as there's no reason, for example, to pull a kernel into a buildroot. Well, the tricky part here is we need to require a kernel with ecryptfs.ko in it. For F-7 and devel no problems, as all of them have it. For FC-6 however, the early kernels didn't, and the updated ones do. I thought that the error end users get from yum on Requires is more usefull than Conflicts? >That's bad; these shouldn't be linked against things in /usr/lib. (Yes, some >people still run /usr separate.) Moreover, I suspect that both of these will >also dlopen the plugins in $(libdir)/ecryptfs? Thats a good Question. Michael? Any thoughts? Yes, those .so's under libdir/ecryptfs/ do dlopen the so's. This sounds like something for upstream to change? > -devel: what, if anything, will ever build against this? If there's nothing, >it may not be worth shipping. (Also,does this package maintain a stable ABI?) I don't know of anything... Michael? -- 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