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=547993 --- Comment #6 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-12-21 13:07:04 EDT --- (Well, it is better that you don't compare to font packages. Now Fedora has extra guidelines for font packages and bundling fonts in this way is _strictly_ forbidden and will surely be rejected ... https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy ) Still I don't understand. (In reply to comment #5) > Imagine that you are packaging an office package. The office software makes use > of fonts that are under a special format that can only be opened from this > particular office software. Of course the software can operate without these > fonts but it is 50 times more functional if it these fonts were available. :) - Well, how is it different from that "xscreensaver can be used with xscreensaver-base only but installing xscreensaver-extras or xscreensaver-gl-extras makes much better" (I guess people using xscreensaver-base usually also installs xscreensaver-extras), or "firefox can be used only with it but installing plugin foo or bar makes it much better"? Seperating source (or at least creating subpackages) has some advantages - You don't have to update seperated subpackage when you apply some patches against main package - Fedora already support noarch subpackage - Source1 may have different license (as it is rather contents package) (or license may change) and seperating it can make it easier to keep track of licensing issue > It is almost the same situation with jconv(olver). We can put these in a > subpackage. But given the target audience is really limited to enthusiasts and > these reverbs aren't updated independently from jconv(olver) software, it is > not beneficial to make a subpackage (or a separate package). -- 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