On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 23:52, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The obvious response here is 'so, package CruiseControl too!' If you > can't package CruiseControl, then you shouldn't package phpUnderControl; > it's frowned upon / not allowed (I can never remember which) to package > something which requires something that can't go into Fedora for some > reason. OK, that is what I thought. I might have a look at packaging CruiseControl in the future, but I can't really see having a CruiseControl and a phpUnderControlCruiseControl, because that would be frowned upon even by me :-) I also don't really want to package CruiceControl, because it is Java and I just don't understand it enough. It seems to be very specific where you place your data files. > For whatever reason, We Don't Like Metapackages and the 'recommended' > way to do it is with a package group. I've never seen a particularly > coherent reason given for this, but never mind. Some packagers _have_ > done metapackages, and none of them have been shot yet. Just sayin'. It would be good to have this in the packaging guidelines somewhere. All I could find were random threads in mailing list, none of them with an official conclusion as far as I could seen. I guess I will leave both packages for now and create my own repository with just those two and see how it is working out. Cheers, Christof -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
