[Bug 179040] Review Request: socat

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: socat


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=179040





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-05-12 03:16 EST -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> Some more packages only put configure.in/configure.ac in their development (CVS)
> tree, and just put the configure script and not the autoconf/automake in.
> Sometimes this is done to prevent dependancies on autoconfig/automake. I don't
> think it is a big issue for building this package.

In addition to Ralf's comments, which I agree with, I'd add that it's normal
practice to ship the configure.in/configure.ac and that these do not introduce
buildreqs on autotools if the timestamps on the files are correct, i.e.
configure is later than the files used to generate it.

> permissions on the debug rpm files after install is 644 for files and 755 for
> directories. So everyone can read everything. What is exactly going wrong?

I was going to look into this but the package
(ftp://ftp.xelerance.com/socat/binaries/fedora/4/SRPMS/socat-1.4.3.1-1.src.rpm)
doesn't build for me on my FC5 i386 desktop, with the same failure mode as in
Comment #4.


-- 
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.