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=491767 --- Comment #3 from Nalin Dahyabhai <na...@redhat.com> 2009-03-24 11:30:27 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Some quick notes: > > - ldconfig does not need to be required since it's part of glibc. You're sure that won't get us into a situation where the package gets installed before the binary's there? > - Change requirement of /sbin/chkconfig to chkconfig (package). Ok, will do. > - .so files should be in devel package? There aren't any header files, and right now it would create a conflict with nss_ldap to include it, so it's disabled. Does it make sense to package a symlink by itself in a subpackage? -- 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 Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
