[Bug 442009] Review Request: bind-libbind - The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) libbind resolver libraries

[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: bind-libbind - The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) libbind resolver libraries


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=442009





------- Additional Comments From redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.de  2008-04-20 09:21 EST -------
> Well, if this is for EPEL4 why didn't you use the bind from RHEL4 as base, as 
> it has "long update support" as well? I tend to say it will looks quite odd 
> for users to find bind-9.2.4 in RHEL4 but a libbind that's based on the
> RHEL5-version bind-9.3.5 in EPEL4. Are they really independent/will libbind 
> from bind-9.3 work fine with bind-9.2? 

AFAIK libbind found it's way into Fedora/RHEL the first time with a bind 9.3.x 
series, I can imagine this had a good reason. On the other hand, the bind 9.2.x 
ships libbind.so.3 which seems to be a bigger step to libbind.so.4 coming from 
9.3.x; the current bind 9.5.x also ships libbind.so.4. This keeps me as EPEL
maintainer on the safer side, that if something in libbind breaks, somebody has
at least a look for RHEL 5 at it and I can just grab/steal afterwards the patch 
for EPEL 4 ;-)

Personally, I didn't see a problem with having this libbind packageon a CentOS 
4.6 together with Bitlbee 1.2, yet. Ah and a closed source third party software
also works with it - oh and that one somehow depends on libbind.so.4 and not on 
libbind.so.3...

But regarding the real deep technical points, maybe Adam is able to tell a few
words here?

> Source1:	libbind-man.tar.gz

I'll change that. I just copied it over from a current bind package as it is.

> BuildRequires:	glibc-devel >= 2.2.5-26, glibc-kernheaders >= 2.4-7.10

I think, you're right. Also a copied thing. I'll check this soon for the next 
package in mock.

>  * The "description" is IMHO confusing/hard to read and doesn't really express
> what the package contains. 

Mmmh...yes. Should get rewriten, when now re-reading it again.

>  * This "(-,root,root)" IIRC should be "(-,root,root,-)"

Luckily that's optional and not a must ;-)

-- 
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.