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: socat https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-12 03:16 EST ------- (In reply to comment #9) > Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development > (CVS) > tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in. > Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't > think it is a big issue for building this package. In addition to Ralf's comments, which I agree with, I'd add that it's normal practice to ship the configure.in/configure.ac and that these do not introduce buildreqs on autotools if the timestamps on the files are correct, i.e. configure is later than the files used to generate it. > permissions on the debug rpm files after install is 644 for files and 755 for > directories. So everyone can read everything. What is exactly going wrong? I was going to look into this but the package (ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-188.8.131.52-1.src.rpm) doesn't build for me on my FC5 i386 desktop, with the same failure mode as in Comment #4. -- 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 Fedorafirstname.lastname@example.org http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review