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=510402 --- Comment #3 from David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> 2009-07-09 23:59:44 EDT --- Had this conversation with nb in irc re the 22 subpackages. 23:27 < ke4qqq> np - mind answerin a question or two? 23:28 < ke4qqq> nb ^^ /me can't type apparently 23:28 < nb> sure 23:29 < ke4qqq> so can you tell me why so many subpackages - are they really all necessary to subpackage? esp since so many of them seem to be a single file. 23:30 < nb> hrmm 23:30 * nb was doing like the old spec i based them off of 23:31 < nb> i think the idea was some people may not want all the modules 23:31 < nb> although i could see making it all one package since they arent that big 23:31 < nb> and you have to load them anyway 23:31 < nb> either via webadmin or the config or once you are on irc 23:31 < nb> either via webadmin or the config or once you are on irc 23:32 < ke4qqq> so you can interactively/programmatically load the modules - ie, it's not a memory issue with all of them being loaded ? 23:32 < nb> yeah, they dont get loaded unless you tell it to 23:34 < ke4qqq> give me just a minute 23:41 < ke4qqq> so it looks like it would build 22 sub-packages - and while I can't really find anything that specifically talks about what qualifies something as a package, I think it greatly complicates things without a lot of advantages - I could see saving the ssl stuff, perl, sasl etc as subpackages. 23:41 < ke4qqq> but you may also want to seek another opinion other than mine as well 23:42 < mujahid> its been a while.; 23:42 < nb> i could see that 23:42 < mujahid> lol how so? 23:42 * nb can put the rest besides perl sasl and ssl in the main package 23:43 < nb> iirc the modules arent that big of files 23:43 < nb> or would it be ok just to BuildRequires: everything and put everything in the one package? 23:44 < ke4qqq> that would strike me as ok as well - perhaps even logical - not many systems are going to be without perl or ssl, sasl might not be as common, but it's a small dependency 23:45 < ke4qqq> where did you get the old spec? 23:46 < nb> let me get the link 23:47 < nb> http://home.ircnet.de/cru/znc/sources/znc-0.052-4.cru.src.rpm 23:47 < nb> its a old version 23:48 < ke4qqq> did it have a changelog? 23:48 < nb> no 23:48 * nb is building a version with all in 1 package 23:48 < ke4qqq> weird - ok I have a few other comments as well that I'll add to the review. 23:48 < nb> ok Also - the other sources should probably be noted as to where they came from. For instance - that you can get the znc-log code from here: http://cnu.dieplz.net/code/znc/log/znc_log-0.002.tar.bz2 (it's listed as a separate source file.) Look more at this shortly. -- 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