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=457035 --- Comment #19 from Nicolas Chauvet (kwizart) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-27 13:58:05 EDT --- @Nathaniel Indeed, I would say even that: your advices are not only welcomed, but they are really needed to define with you an sharp way to package libproxy. So this is an exchange in two ways And without your advices, there is low chance that the package will be provided within fedora. Also, I hope that this talk doesn't only serve Fedora. I've for example requested the OpenSUSE packager for advices, and I know he's following. So according to the quick advices received from the kde team. It is better to link directly to libproxy library. So I guess to use this spec solely. Now I just wonder if libproxy will be useable as is , since it will lack the related modules from within libproxy along with lack of support from the related components (control-center, neon, NetworkManager, xulrunner,yum , pirut etc), At least for our configuration tools in F-10. So for the long plan. I expect there is a need for a feature request to have most "internet application" to be converted/tested to libproxy support/compliance. Spec URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/libproxy.spec SRPM URL: http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/libproxy-0.2.3-7.fc8.kwizart.src.rpm -- 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
