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: setools - SELinux policy analysis tools https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280541 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEEDINFO |NEW Flag|needinfo?([EMAIL PROTECTED]| |om) | ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-20 10:44 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > For 3.3.1-3: > * Redundant Requires > - Please consider if explicit version requirements > are really required. They don't hurt, and if in the future explicit versioning is needed, maintenance will be simpler to just fix the version in one place, rather than having to dig around all of the requires. Unless there is a rule about this, I strongly prefer to keep these. > * unstripped ELF binaries > - Still lots of ELF binaries are not stripped. How is this supposed to be handled? I see no explicit stripping in any spec file in all of fedora. And if you explicitly strip them, doesn't it break the debuginfo rpm? > * files in setools metapackage > - These files cannot be installed when setools package is explicitly > excluded and in this case COPYING file and so on is not installed. > > All files in setools metapackage should be moved to other subpackages > (mostly in -libs subpackage). If I remove all of the files, no setools rpm is built, how can this be handled? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
