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=486804 --- Comment #4 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> 2009-03-21 13:45:05 EDT --- Haven't had a look at the update rpms yet, so just some answers: > If possible I'd like to continue using the same spec in Fedora > and in the OBS to make openSUSE rpms too. I'm not aware of any policy that disallows this. However, history has shown that it's more convenient to keep spec files distribution-specific and clean. Often distribution-independent spec files are expanded with many conditional sections, which reduce readability and sometime even cause side-effects. This can get really ugly in places where you must use Fedora-specific macros or scriptlet fragments. And also in the %changelog. > License: LGPLv2+, Boost, Copyright only > > I'm not sure how to chain them though. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > %makeinstall https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used -- 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