--- Comment #13 from Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
I hope you're on vacation
No, this sometimes strange concept of "real life" demanded a bit more attention
than usually in the past few weeks ;-) But honestly, looking into this was
definitely on my todo list for Easter :-)
and didn't lose interest.
No -- but I'm wondering if it would be better for everyone if you would
maintain this package. But we can change that after the review if we want to.
Looking forward to your answers and finishing the review.
Here we go:
(In reply to comment #11)
Please fix the review request so that the spec file is the same as the one
in the SRPM.
Argh, sorry, that was a small last minute change. And I really need to look
properly into the selinux issue, that's why I'm not uploading a new package
Please consider notifying upstream about the unversioned .so
file and ask them if they would provide properly versioned one.
Hmmmm. I got the impression unversioned .so files are a normal thing for NM
after running this:
[thl@thl-t420 tmp]$ repoquery -ql NetworkManager-openconnect
NetworkManager-openswan NetworkManager-openswan NetworkManager-openvpn
NetworkManager-pptp NetworkManager-vpnc NetworkManager-wimax | grep
Also I would like to ask whether you think it would be a good idea to
the strongswan-NetworkManager subpackage and deliver the charon-nm inside
the strongswan package.
strongswan-NetworkManager has dependencies on things like libdbus-1,
libnm-util, and libnm-glib-vpn, so it might be wise to keep it separate to keep
a minimal install with strongswan small (but maybe all these things are
installed in a minimal install already anyway -- I didn't check)
I made it separate as I thought that it would
provide NM integration but having strongswan-NetworkManager and
NetworkManager-strongswan is pretty much confusing.
How about renaming the sub-package to strongswan-charon-nm or something like
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug