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=498194 --- Comment #16 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <kanarip@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-01 19:58:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14) > Well, what exactly will Zarafa do for their own RPM package builds for the 6.40 > release? Will they split up as same or won't they do? I feel very uncomfortable > to do these split-ups, if they don't do the same. And I still don't want to see > this package similar over-engineered and unusable such as the current Fedora > clamav package. Zarafa's Steve Hardy seems to like the split-up for 6.40. I highly doubt they'll change their packaging of 6.30. (In reply to comment #15) > If there are sane use cases where users will really need only parts of the > package then split the package there, but splitting for splitting's sake (e.g. > like clamav) is not good. > I agree with what you're saying here, but all of these are separate components to the Zarafa architecture, and can be installed on separate servers. > Also relying on an external vendor's packaging style is also not sane - when we > say that Fedora follows upstream we mean the source code, not the packaging > practice. Of course the other way, e.g. persuading upstream packaging to lean > on our package style is always fine. :) This is going upstream, yes ;-) -- 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