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=480870 --- Comment #3 from John W. Linville <linvi...@redhat.com> 2009-01-22 15:47:40 EDT --- I chose the "v" version of the crda tarball because those had later dates than the equivalent non-"v" versions. I made the assumption that this was the new release policy for the project. I'm happy to change the spec summary -- how about "Regulatory compliance daemon for 802.11 wireless networking"? I will also include the README files, probably as README.crda and README.wireless-regdb. I will change the ownership of /usr/lib/crda. I will move and rename the udev rules. Any suggestions for choosing a numeric priority? Adding a udev requirement makes perfect sense. The point about /usr being mounted later is a good one. I don't know how realistic a NFS-mounted /usr over wireless is, but it probably makes sense to allow for wireless networking and all allowed channels even when /usr isn't mounted. Are there any other guidelines differentiating /lib versus /usr/lib? Regarding one package versus two, I'm open to suggestions. I combined them under the thought that relying on an externally signed binary would drive some people nuts. Building them together allows for an automatically generated key that can be discarded, similar to how kernel module signing has been handled in the past. If that isn't important, than your suggestion regarding /etc/pki is a good one. Realistically I don't know how much difference it makes -- I don't think either crda or wireless-regdb are likely to be spun very often, and crda is not such a big package as to discourage revving it when wireless-regdb changes -- thoughts? In the interim, I'll revise the spec assuming that it remains as a single package, and I'll probably continue to use /usr/lib/crda for now just because the crda upstream is preconditioned for that behavior. Thanks for the feedback! -- 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 Fedoraemail@example.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review