On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Adam Williamson (awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx) said: >>> We should make a stand and drop it from Fedora until it's not made up of >>> bonghits and failure. (haha, yeah. thanks, here all week, etc) >> >> I'm not quite sure why it needs separate lsb/upstart init scripts >> anyway. Don't most of our packages just include one initscript with both >> bits in the headers? > > No. A package could have either a SystemV init script or an upstart job > file. (Note that we don't recommend people push upstart job files for their > services yet, but since when have people listened...) Note that I've requested a lot of that stuff to go away multiple times. I even have support from upstream (CC:ed on the message) to bring sanity to the package. Upstream has started to tell people to ignore the fedora package and use their own supplied rpm :( Please do not drop this package from Fedora. I'd gladly help to make it compliant to the Fedora Guidelines, as I have done before, if Enricho does not want to do this. See also: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175433 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=175799 Paul -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
