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=453850 --- Comment #11 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-17 11:48:49 EDT --- Thanks for the update. (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #7) > > > ! Could you collect all your "%global"s at one place? > > The globals are now first in the file (which seems to be the custom nowadays). > Except for the global that defines %_name which must come after the Name tag, > since it uses %name in its definition and this is not defined before the Name > tag is parsed. This is also the most logical place for it. > This shouldn't matter for rpm, i.e. rpm doesn't needs these to be in logical order. But it's a matter of taste. I won't say anything more. I have one last question: > > > ? Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. > > /usr/share/globus and /usr/share/globus/packages is already owned by > > globus-core. Shouldn't you just put globus-core as a requirement to this > > package? Is this package useful without globus-core? > > globus-core is a development only package. globus-openssl and > globus-openssl-progs are runtime packages. Runtime packages must not Require > development packages. > How about globus-common? That one is a runtime package and "sounds" like the one all the other globus packages would require. Multiple ownership is not much desired that's why I'm asking. Is the globus-openssh package worth anything without having globus-common installed? -- 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