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=459637 --- Comment #8 from Lucian Langa <cooly@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-07 06:02:31 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > Thanks for doing that. It would be good to add a quick comment to the spec > near the License: tag indicating which parts are GPLv2 and which are GPLv2+ so > you don't have to look for the COPYRIGHT files. Fixed. > I can't quite tell if the svxlink-server package needs a dependency on udev > (for /etc/udev/rules.d) or whether the dependency chain includes it. Added udev dependency. > I note that the .so files aren't executable. I was under the impression that > they needed to be executable for things to work, and my systems don't seem to > have any non-executable so files in _libdir. Fixed. Though I can find non-executable files in my _libdir. I guess it all depends on the loading method. Anyway this is seamless thing to do. > Any reason for not using the standard user management scriptlet? As it is now, > your system fails badly if the svxlink user is defined somewhere other than > /etc/passwd (such as on my LDAP server). Check > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/UsersAndGroups for more info; it's > basically just calling getent. Also, you will need Requries(pre): shadow-utils > for that scriptlet. Fixed. new versions: http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/svxlink.spec http://lucilanga.fedorapeople.org/svxlink-080730-6.fc10.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review