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 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #13 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-17 16:04:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > > > 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 did actually test it before writing it. The order does matter. > That's interesting. It works either way here. Maybe the RPM version matters. I tested this on F-10 and F-11. Oh well... No big deal. > There is at least one usecase for having globus-openssl without globus-common. > This is for building globus-gsi-proxy-ssl (see review reqest bug #453854). > This requires globus-core and globus-openssl, but not globus-common. globus-common is not that common then :) I was just asking about the usage, not for building packages. If you think there might be people, who will use globus-openssl, but don't want to have globus-common installed, then multiple ownership is okay. I trust your judgement. ------------------------------------------------- This package (globus-openssl) is APPROVED by oget ------------------------------------------------- -- 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