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: ctapi-cyberjack https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-09 15:59 EST ------- Sorry Frank, But there are still some issues. My fault completly: -I forgot to mention in my review that you should also add an -soname option to the ifd handler "ld" command in the Makefile. This is a should fix though and doesn't block approval -The %post and %postun scripts for pcsc however do need some minor changes and that I do concider a blocker: -The comments should be below the %post resp %postun not above. As it is now the comment above %post will become part of %install (and do nothing there) and the comment above %postun will become part of %post (try rpm -q --scripts) instead of %postun. -A bigger problem is that each command in a %post script should end with "|| :" Because rpm will concider a package as not installed (or not removed!) if the script fails and bash uses the exit of the last command as script exit. So change: "/sbin/service pcscd condrestart" to "/sbin/service pcscd condrestart || :" -You now have the Requires(post[un]): /usr/sbin/update-reader.conf as I adviced, but you no longer use those. I guess that your initial solution of just requiring pcsc-lite was better. Sorry about this, I though the explicit /usr/sbin/update-reader.conf Requires would be better thinking that maybe one day we will have more then one pcsc implementation, but that seems highly unlikely. So just move back to "Requires: pcsc-lite" for the -pcsc subpackage (_Sorry_). With these few easy fixes we really should be there! I also notices some nasty 64 bit related warnings, but I've checked the relevant part of the sources and they seem harmless. Looking forward to -12 and to approving it! -- 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