[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-25 14:44 EST --- Could you possibly just make the subpackage 'cyberjack-pcsc' and keep the main package as 'ctapi-cyberjack' ? Perhaps it would be worth asking the fedora-packaging-list folks? I'm going to unset the cvs flag for now until it's determined what needs to be done here. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-25 15:03 EST --- I think we'd want a package named pcsc-lite-cyberjack for the pcsc bits, openct already does that. Use %package -n pcsc-lite-cyberjack etc in the specfile to accomplish that. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-24 12:48 EST --- Upstream is named ctapi-cyberjack isn't it? Or did they rename? Wouldn't renaming it confuse users as it's not the same as upstream? Also, debian and suse at least ship it with this name. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-24 12:55 EST --- It is only an idea, because the PC/SC sub package have an some confuses name. It will be called ctapi-cyberjack-pcsc... I think this can confuse some users, because PC/SC and CT-API are to total different API's. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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/show_bug.cgi?id=188369 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-09-23 08:28 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ctapi-cyberjack Updated Name: cyberjack Rename the package to get more clean sub package names. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2007-06-24 02:47 EST --- Yes this have worked. Thanks. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-23 11:20 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: ctapi-cyberjack New Branches: F-7 Because the F-7 directory is missing in the CVS repo. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added CC||[EMAIL PROTECTED] Flag|fedora-cvs? | --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-06-23 23:23 EST --- There seems to be a F-7 dir from what I can see... make sure you use 'cvs update -d' when updating your local directories. By default cvs won't make new directories, you have to have -d there to make it add them. Please re-check and resubmit if you still have issues. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 09:20 EST --- Thank's now it works. Must the file called ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-13.src.rpm or ctapi-cyberjack.src.rpm? -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 10:17 EST --- AFAIK the SRPM filename doesn't matter I just use the filename as generated by rpmbuild -bs -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 12:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #77) Thank's now it works. Must the file called ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-13FC5.src.rpm or ctapi-cyberjack-FC5.src.rpm simple ctapi-cyberjack.src.rpm ? I don't mean to offend, but I am surprised that by the end of this lengthy process you are asking basic questions like this. Please review the packaging guidelines and package naming guidelines carefully, as understanding them are very important to Fedora cvsextras membership. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines Warren, He was asking howot name the SRPM to pass to cvs-import.sh a bit strange question I must admit but nothing something that can be found in the guidelines AFAIK. Frank, I just saw on the cvs-commit that you committed changes to an FC-4 version, I hope your CVS branch request got handled that quickly, or did you do something else to get the other branches? -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 12:20 EST --- All packages are build perfect for FC4 and FC5. Now the packages are waiting to be signed. The changes at the FC4 version are only the parts in the specfile that for FC4. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 12:54 EST --- Ups. Yes I have edit the wiki page. And ca.10 minirs later I have run cvs co ctapi-cyberjack ans all was fine. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 13:05 EST --- Good, that was a quick CVs branch, don't get used to 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-11 13:18 EST --- Thanks a lot for your patience with me:) -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-10 09:01 EST --- So here try #12 http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-12FC5.src.rpm?download -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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 10:54 EST --- That's because what you intended as a comment above %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig (#unrerister [sic]...) is not actually a comment but it will be passed to /sbin/ldconfig as the %post script contents. Some versions of ldconfig choke on that. Fix: remove the comments, and remember that you can't use comments that way ;) By the way, you don't need to call /usr/sbin/update-reader.conf, the pcscd init script does that automatically on startup. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-08 04:37 EST --- So now the lib will be find again:) Here the package http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-9FC5.src.rpm?download -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-08 08:59 EST ---
What so you men with The pcsc ifd gets installed as /laibcyberjck_ifd.so which
is ofcourse not The file will not be direct under root.
on FC5 the file will be put in pkg-config libpcsclite
--variable=usbdropdir/laibcyberjck_ifd.so and on FC in
{_libdir}/readers/laibcyberjck_ifd.so
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-08 10:54 EST --- It really got installed as /libcyberjack_ifd.so on my system because I didn't have pcsc-lite-devel. rpmbuild should have detected this but your spec file misses a: BuildRequires: pcsc-lite-devel Add that to your MUST Fix list. I'll see what I can do about your account. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-08 11:54 EST --- It turns out I've managed to renable you account and sponosr you with any help so you should have CVS access now. But do _not_ import this package yet it first needs to be approved, please post a version with all the Must Fix items fixed and I'll see if that one (finally) is 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-08 12:06 EST --- yes of course but I must wait until my system I ready to start the next try -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-08 13:04 EST --- So now I have modify %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig but this give now antoher error of rpmlind. The new one is here: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-10FC5.src.rpm?download -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-07 06:02 EST ---
I've just approved the ctapi-common package (bug 190911). I guess Ville will
import and build this soon.
So we've solved the where to put the ctapi library issue. Please modify your
package to install the library under %{_libdir}/ctapi and add:
Requires: %{_libdir}/ctapi
Also please remove the versioning (.0) from ctapi-cyberjack.so, but you should
still pass the -soname flag to the linker, just without the .0, .so files should
always should have an soname set.
I'm not sure what todo with regards to soname versioning for the pcsc
ifd-handler .so file. Ville do you know if these should be versioned or not?
Once we have the versioning of the pcsc ifd-handler .so file figured out please
create yet another version of your package. Sorry for the rough ride for your
first package. As I already said you picked a hard one. Well concider this a
good introduction to the review process and the general community process.
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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 Bug 188369 depends on bug 190911, which changed state. Bug 190911 Summary: Review Request: ctapi-common - Common infrastructure for CT-API modules https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190911 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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
Bug 188369 depends on bug 190903, which changed state.
Bug 190903 Summary: Unversioned .so installed in %{_libdir}
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=190903
What|Old Value |New Value
Resolution||ERRATA
Status|NEEDINFO|CLOSED
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-07 10:14 EST --- ok I make the next build on some hours. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-07 12:25 EST --- So the next try please http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-8FC5.src.rpm?download -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-07 12:51 EST --- But now the next problem:( the lib is called libctapi-cyberjack.so.0 in the libcache. And so the apps can't find it because the look for libctapi-cyberjack.so -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-07 15:03 EST --- Did you change the -soname option you added to the Makefile to remove the .0 ? Also while we are at it, since upstream doesn't version the ifdhandler I think neither should we, but as for ctapi, we should still at (an unversioned) -soname option to the linkerflags. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 05:09 EST ---
I've taken a look at part 3 of the docu at:
http://www.teletrust.de/index.php?id=548
It seems that the only relevant part of this pdf for our discussion is in
Appendix A under identification of CTAPI filenames with a wki what the
document says here is basicly that dynamicloaded libs implementing the ctapi
should have a name in the following format: ctxxx[yyy] where xxx is a 3 letter
abbreviation of the manufacturer (CTM ID) (the abbreviations are supposed to be
asigned by a national goverment instance)
So that helps a bit, what it says is that the way to install ctapi
implementations for different cardreaders is indeed to use dlopen and name the
implementation .so files different. The 3 letter thingie clearly is because of
the 8 char length limitation dos had, and since there is no list of assigned
abreviations to be found I say we standardize on the name:
libctapi-manufacturer.so
But since these libraries are intented to be dlopen-ed and dlopen-ed only, and
as such are unversioned (.so instead of .so.x) I don't believe the belong
directly under %{_libdir} but that they shoud instead be put under say
%{_libdir}/ctapi .
Your story about DT_RPATH and LD_LIBARY_PATH above is about how things work for
regular linked binari%{_libdir}/ctapies (iow not using dlopen). Notice that we
don't need to create subdirs under for each ctapi-lib instead we could just put
%{_libdir}/ctapi in a file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d . But that would beat the
entire purpose of putting these files in a seperate dir: not poluting the global
library soname namespace with these plugins .
Another solution would be to teach the dlopen-ing applications about the new
locations. I've moved ctapi-cyberjack.so* to %{_libdir}/ctapi on my system and
then tried to run cjgeldkarte:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cjgeldkarte
Error loading CT-API library.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cjgeldkarte -l ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.so
Error loading CT-API library.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ cjgeldkarte -l /usr/lib64/ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.so
Error doing CT_init. (Return code:-1)
As you can see cjgeldkarte can no longer find its default libctapi-cyberjack.so
and passing ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.so doesn't help either, we need to pass a
full path. Thats unfortunate because I find the full path ugly and it differs
from one arch to the other (usr/lib vs /usr/lib/64) now we can patch the correct
path into the binary during during built but thats not pretty.
The last option is to set DT_RPATH in the elf headers of the binaries using the
plugins to %{_libdir}/ctapi. This is quite easy, just change the make line in
the specfile to:
export LD_RUN_PATH=%{_libdir}/ctapi
make
I must say I prefer this option, because it keeps the unversioned ctapi
libraries out of the regular soname namespace.
I'll open a bug against openct which currently also installs an unversioned .so
file in %{_libdir} for the ctapi.
Hopefully with the input of the openct maintainer we can choose one of the 3
choises which I see we have:
1) drop unversioned .so 's only intended for dlopen in %{_libdir}
2) put them in %{_libdir}/ctapi and code full path's to them (and users
who want to use a different then the defualtlib also must specify the full
path).
3) put them in %{_libdir}/ctapi and set rpath to %{_libdir}/ctapi for binaries
using the ctapi
1 and 3 are realistic options in my vision 2 is not.
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 05:22 EST --- As promised I've opened a bug against openct on this to get some sorta resolution, its bug 190903 . -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:17 EST ---
I agree with your vision wrt. 1) and 2), but I think 3) represents a too FE
centric world view which will cause some pain for 3rd party non-FE apps that
rightfully (per the spec) assume that they can just dlopen() the module.
1) is not too nice, agreed, but a fourth alternative would be to ship let's say
a ctapi-common package which drops a /etc/ld.so.conf.d/ctapi.conf snippet which
adds %{_libdir}/ctapi to the linker's load path, as well as include a README in
the package that describes the install location and naming conventions for FE
CT-API modules.
There is also a slight issue wrt. the libctapi-implementation.so scheme
because in some cases, for example openct and (I guess) towitoko, it would
differ from upstream module names. I think we should either stick with upstream
naming or create compatibility symlinks.
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:19 EST ---
Forgot to note that when using the fourth approach, ctapi-common would own
%{_libdir}/ctapi and all packages that install CT-API modules would install them
into that dir and have a dependency on ctapi-common.
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:37 EST ---
The 4th alternative sounds like the best one to me. In this case I don't think
we need to standardise the .so filenames, since they are already under
%{_libdir}/ctapi, making clear what they are and giving apps a unique way to
enumerate all ctapi implementations available (all .so files under
%{_libdir}/ctapi)
So I say lets go with the 4th approach:
-ctapi implementing libs go under %{_libdir}/ctapi
-%{_libdir}/ctapi is owned by ctapi-common
-ctapi-common drops a (64 and 32bit?) file under /etc/ld.so.conf.d
-ctapi implementing libs must depend on ctapi-common(.arch?)
Who wants to create the ctapi-common package?
We should also think about a ctapi-devel package containing a unified ctapi.h
ctbcs.h and maybe manpages (from the towitoko ctapi upstream)
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:52 EST --- I think number 4 is the best solution. But where build the ctapi-common package?? It must be an solution where non OpenSource software also work, for example somethink like moneyplex. Ok when an final work about the solutions was find I will countinus to work on my package. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 06:56 EST --- an unified ctapi.h is an second problem, because some manufacture add specal function the the api. But we can do make can ctapi-common-devel package, witch contains an general ctapi.h witch only has the the 3 needed funtion's(ct_init,ct_data,ct_close) so it can be used with all readers. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added BugsThisDependsOn||190911 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-06 07:30 EST --- Bug 190911 contains a first cut of the ctapi-common package, feel free to review and/or take ownership. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-05-06 16:37 EST --- One more thing we might want to consider is to add something like Provides: ctapi-module (versioned using the CT-API spec if appliable?) to all packages shipping CT-API modules so that other packages that require some module being available can use that virtual dependency instead of having to leave it out or to depend on a specific implementation. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-30 04:53 EST ---
Well thats a nice start:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpmbuild -ba /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ctapi-cyberjack.spec
error: parse error in expression
error: /usr/src/redhat/SPECS/ctapi-cyberjack.spec:15: parseExpressionBoolean
returns -1
error: Package has no %description: ctapi-cyberjack
This is caused by the following lines in the spec:
%if %{dist} == FC4
%define readers_dir%{_libdir}/readers
%else
%define readers_dir %(pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir)
%endif
I was already planning on adding a MUST Fix item for those, but not this soon
in the review. This is not the Fedora Extras way of doing things to avoid %if
filled specfiles we have one specfile per release in our CVS. Reviews should
always happen against the devel release, but in most cases (this one included)
the latest stable is fine too.
So for this review please target FC-5 and FC-5 only then once your package is
approved and imported (into the devel branch where all imports happen) you can
request CVS branches for FC-5 and FC-4 and then change the specfile for FC-4 .
It is ok to add a comment to the specfile submitted for review about nescesarry
changes for older releases. So you could change the above lines to:
# define this to %{_libdir}/readers when building on FC-4
%define readers_dir %(pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir)
Since it looks like I won't be able todo a full review right now after all
because of lack of time and because there is alot to fix in a first glance, here
is a quick and probably incomplete list of MUST Fix items:
MUST Fix
* Don't use release conditional %if constructs, instead target FC-5 with the
spec submitted for review (see above).
* Don't use German in the specfile not even in comments
* Remove the unused %define _realrelease1
* Replace 4%{dist} with 4%{?dist} watch the ?
* Have you tried replacing make with make %{?_smp_mflags} ?
Ifso please add a comment that make breaks with %{?_smp_mflags} if not
please add %{?_smp_mflags}.
* When linking libctapi-cyberjack.so it doesn't get passed an soname flag, the
ld -x --shared -lusb -o libctapi-cyberjack.so ctn_list.o cjctapi_beep.o ...
command should get passed -soname libctapi-cyberjack.so.0
* When installing libctapi-cyberjack.so you install it as
libctapi-cyberjack.so.%{version} this is not correct you should install it as
libctapi-cyberjack.so.0 (matching the -soname above).
When the ABI of the library changes (which it will probably never will) you
change both the -soname and the install command to libctapi-cyberjack.so.1,
when the ABI changes again to .2 etc.
* Don't use a .so.%{version} install for the ifd, this is a plugin which always
gets dlopen-ed and as such should be installed as a plain .so, thus you also
do not need to add -soname to the link command for the ifd only for the ctapi
lib.
* libcyberjack_ifd.so gets staticly linked against libctapi-cyberjack, please
make this dynamic (currently the link command includes:
../ctapi/libctapi-cyberjack.a replace this with -L../ctapi
-llibctapi-cyberjack).
* drop the Requires: %{name} = %{version} for PC-SC subpackage,
currently it is staticly linked and the dyn link which should be there will
lead to an autodependency generated by rpm.
* Rename the PC-SC subpakcage to pcsc to match the way pcsc is written in
other packages names (pcsc-lite, pcsc-tools, pcsc-perl)
* Don't create the docdir and install the docs there just name the docs
as they are releative to the builddir afyter %doc, rpmbuild will copy
them for you and create the docdir itself.
And some personal preferences of mine, not obligatory in anyway:
* Don't put a , between BuildRequires whitespace alone is enough.
* Don't use %{buildroot} because %{buildroot}%{_datadir} is hard to read,
instead use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir} is IMHO much easier
to read.
Phew, long list. Good luck fixing all these, most are trivial to fix though and
don't get scared away by this you picked a hard package to start with and as
package more software your reviews will go more and more smoothly. Please post a
new version addressing all the above MUST Fix items, then I'll take a second
stab at doing a Full review and hopefully approving your first package. Feel
free to ask questions about the above if there is anything you don't understand
or disagree with.
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-30 06:24 EST --- So I have try to fix it but I have found an big bug in rpmbuild:( to support FC4 and FC5 I have written this: #use this for FC4 #%define readers_dir #use this for FC5 #%define readers_dir but rpmbuild ignore the # so when remove the # for FC4 the variable readers_dir ist not it is -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-30 07:10 EST --- Known problem / feature Its not really a bug but it is anoying the part of rpmbuild doing % macro expansions doesn;t know about comments. If you want tuse use a % in a comment write %% -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-30 07:52 EST --- So the next try I hope I have fixed all Here the URL: https://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=155466package_id=186639release_id=413834 -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-27 07:57 EST --- So I have build an new spec file. I think I have do all needed changes. I have alos fix the readers config file. And the spec file can now be used for FC4 and FC5. here the URL: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/qsmartcard/ctapi-cyberjack.spec?download -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-26 12:23 EST ---
So I am working on it.
But with the PCSC-lite driver directory it fails, because
pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir returns only empty.
So the build will fail:(
And the makefile try to install the driver at
install -m 755 pcsc/libcyberjack_ifd.so
'/var/tmp/ctapi-cyberjack-2.0.8-4%{dist}-root-frankpkg-config libpcsclite
--variable=usbdropdir/libcyberjack_ifd.so.2.0.8'
In the spec file I have written:
%define readers_dir pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir
--
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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-26 14:35 EST --- (In reply to comment #17) But with the PCSC-lite driver directory it fails, because pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir returns only empty. You'll need pcsc-lite-devel = 1.3.0 (which is available in = FC5) for that, earlier versions don't have the usbdropdir variable. $ pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir /usr/lib64/pcsc/drivers In the spec file I have written: %define readers_dir pkg-config libpcsclite --variable=usbdropdir That can't work, try %(pkg-config ...) instead of the quotes. -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-26 15:28 EST --- ok. And how build I this with FC4?? -- 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
[Bug 188369] Review Request: ctapi-cyberjack
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] 2006-04-26 15:45 EST ---
The simplest solution would be to blindly define readers_dir as
%{_libdir}/pcsc/drivers in the FC4 specfile. That would work for FC5+ currently
too, but there are no guarantees; querying it from pkg-config is the official
upstream way.
--
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
