On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 17:49 +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > Hm... I see the point... I wonder, if I split the metacity and metatheme > into subpackages, can the engine package be arch specific, and > subpackages noarch? > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-art-list mailing list > Fedora-art-list@xxxxxxxxxx > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list Ok, I prepared new packages and put them on the wiki [1]. For submission to the Package Review I will wait for your consideration. So, the changes to the upstream are that I splitted the package in two: the first contains gtk engine and theme, the second one contains metacity theme and metatheme. So I made one archspecific rpm containing the content of the first package and two noarch rpms containing the second package - one for metacity and one for the metatheme. The metacity theme package is subpackage of the metatheme package. I decided to rename the upstream packages to gtk-nodoka-engine-%{version} and nodoka-theme-gnome-%{version}. For rpms the names are same and the metacity theme package is named nodoka-metacity-theme (same scheme as in echo-icon-theme). I didn't bothered much this time with obsoletes/provides (and will drop the older ones in future as well) to keep the spec files as clean as possible. So if you want to update, I recommend to reinstall the packages rather than update them (however if you update/install them all at once it will work). If you are OK with these changes I will submit the new version on the package review and make new package review for the second one. Thanks, Martin References: [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/NodokaTheme
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
