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: nant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193957 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-09 19:09 EST ------- I have to look at the libdir issue some more this weekend first. Also tibbs has asked spot to look into what kind of formal guidelines would make sense for mono applications as well. So far there's been discussion about redefining %{_libdir}, whether %{_datadir} vs /usr/lib is something worth waiting for, and the security issues WRT .dlls distributed by a project that is not its upstream. If you have any guideline ideas or whatnot, it would be good to email fedora-extras or jump into fedora-extras IRC to discuss them. I'm pretty sure that with some more formal guidelines there will be more people willing to review mono packages. The libdir thing is so hacky that a lot of people just don't know what would be a good idea with mono and what would not. I'm willing to look at it. But understanding the underlying issues and trying to figure out whether redefining libdir is really needed and what other methods might be applied to fixing things has to come before I can do a competent job of reviewing. It would really suck if a whole slew of mono apps were approved now and we had to chase them all down and fix them later. And it would really suck if some of the other mono packagers weren't as conscientious as you about fixing things once issues were brought up and we had packages needing fixes sitting around the repository for years. -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
