[Bug 280541] Review Request: setools - SELinux policy analysis tools

[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: setools - SELinux policy analysis tools


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=280541


cpebenito at tresys.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |NEW
               Flag|needinfo?(cpebenito at tresys.c|
                   |om)                         |




------- Additional Comments From cpebenito at tresys.com  2007-09-20 10:44 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> For 3.3.1-3:
> * Redundant Requires
>   - Please consider if explicit version requirements
>     are really required.

They don't hurt, and if in the future explicit versioning is needed, maintenance
will be simpler to just fix the version in one place, rather than having to dig
around all of the requires.  Unless there is a rule about this, I strongly
prefer to keep these.

> * unstripped ELF binaries
>   - Still lots of ELF binaries are not stripped.

How is this supposed to be handled?  I see no explicit stripping in any spec
file in all of fedora.  And if you explicitly strip them, doesn't it break the
debuginfo rpm?

> * files in setools metapackage
>   - These files cannot be installed when setools package is explicitly
>     excluded and in this case COPYING file and so on is not installed.
> 
>     All files in setools metapackage should be moved to other subpackages
>     (mostly in -libs subpackage).

If I remove all of the files, no setools rpm is built, how can this be handled?


-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.