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=477870 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |needinfo?(fedora@xxxxxxxxxx | |o.uk) --- Comment #13 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-03 10:10:26 EDT --- I'll take this review. Everything looks good to me. I have a few questions: - does this comment mean we have reduced functionality? "... these files aren't needed for source plugins; they are only needed "so the example-installer plugins can create full projects in your workspace)" - could we match upstream's qualifier instead of that of the build? I worry this will give multilib conflicts since the builds on x86_64 and x86 will happen on different machines without the same hour and minute. If we can't match upstream's qualifier (in the case they're all different), just set it to something sane so all arches end up the same. - why not use separate dropins directories for the sub-packages? This gives a much cleaner %files section Thanks. -- 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