Denis Leroy wrote: > The package seems to deal with two different tarballs, and generate > libgpod (0.4.2) and compat-libgpod (0.3.2) from the same spec file. > > This is somewhat unusual, should this get review approval ? I would > prefer if the package were split in two personally. The compat-libgpod package is only generated for FC6 and isn't part of the F7/devel branch. I did the review on the devel branch only, as it seemed to me that the other branches weren't relevant for the purposes of the merge. Is that not the case? I was the one who submitted the changes to Alex for the compat-libgpod package in the FC6 spec. I believe Alex suggested that since it was going to be short-lived there wasn't too much reason to make it a separate package. I'm not sure what the policy or standard practice is regarding compat- packages. Pointers and examples would be welcome, of course, even if it's not totally relevant in this case. BTW, apologies for not adding a link to the bug in my previous post. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022 -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe. -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Attachment:
pgp90e7B8PLrQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
