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=817306 --- Comment #4 from pcpa <[email protected]> 2012-05-01 14:03:42 EDT --- Thanks again for the review. I uploaded updated spec and srpm on top of the previous ones. Yes, my FAS account is pcpa. I opened a generic bug report about inconsistency with static library packages and guidelines at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=817888 but besides there are only 3 packages that are either in error or are a special case, I did not open one per package, as in the same bug report I listed inconsistency in summary of a large amount of packages and mix of -devel and -devel-static. About the package, I actually implemented the suggestion I made in the upstream bug report, and attached it to the report, so that now it by default creates a shared library. I also rebuilt the megaglest package to ensure it still works correctly. Actually, with a shared libircclient, The megaglest patch megaglest-3.6.0.3-openssl.patch is no longer required, as now libircclient "pulls" the equivalent of "-lssl -lcrypto" -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
