Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=438608 --- Comment #29 from Matthias Saou <matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-26 04:54:31 EDT --- Thanks a lot for the review!!!! (In reply to comment #28) > SHOULD > • if license text missing, ask upstream to include it > License file seems to come with the base elisa distribution. Could upstream > be asked to ship this with the plugins tarball as well? Since there are circular deps between the plugins and the base, the plugins can't be installed without the base, so I'd consider this very minor and wouldn't even bother with it. > • other subpackages should require versioned base That's a tricky bit. All of the packages are usually released with the same version, but it has happened to see only one be immediately replaced with an "n.1" version, making the whole "Requires: foo = %{version}" (strict version) quite tricky, as it could involve useless rebuilds. Maybe having all of the defaults be "Requires: foo >= %{version}" then exceptionally hardcoding to "Requires: foo >= 0.5.24" in a single packages updated to 0.5.24.1? > • require package not files Where is there a file requirement? Again, thanks for the review, we're now one step closer to get the Fedora elisa back into shape at last! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review