* Matthias Saou > From what Dag-Erling answered, it seems like the devel package might > make sense.
Since the documentation mentioned is missing, I'm going to push the devel package for later/request, as proposed by Poul-Henning. > If you do decide to have one, your example above isn't good > (at least for Red Hat and Fedora, SuSE, Mandriva and others do things > differently), as you would need to have for instance : > > varnish (the main package with the daemon) > varnish-libs > varnish-devel (and not "varnish-libs-devel") It's kind of strange, as I get different answers every time I ask anybody about this :-) At the moment, I have a package for review for Fedora. Matthias, could you post comments in RedHat Bugzilla, Bug #230275, please? > The "libs" only make sense to split out if some programs could require > them without requiring the main daemon. Again, from what Dag-Erling > wrote, maybe this would make sense if someone writes a varnishlog file > parser. I guess I will to keep the libs package for future use. It's complete, and thus easier to cope with than a non-existing list of header files and documentation. > Attached are the files I used to build the latest varnish package I > used, in case they can be of any help. Yes, the changes to the initscript and the configuration file are absolutely interesting, though I might insist on putting the config file in /etc/sysconfig. Ingvar -- _______________________________________________ varnish-misc mailing list [email protected] http://projects.linpro.no/mailman/listinfo/varnish-misc
