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=665005 --- Comment #6 from Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-20 02:49:49 EST --- (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > - newer version 0.11 is available > > ATM, I am tempted to go a step further: Rename the sub package into > > "start_server" instead of "perl-Start-Server-start_server" ;) > OK. I think the existing sub-package name is better, though. "start_server" > seems a little too generic. Correct, this would expose the quality of upstream's name choice to users. > > (In reply to comment #3) > > > And if you keep the sub-package, I think it should explicitly require > > > perl-Server-Starter = %{version}-%{release} > > Hmm, I don't see much need to do so > > > > * start_server actually is an application, which only happens to be bundled > > with the Server-Starter-tarball, but otherwise is only loose tied to > > perl(Server::Starter), just like any other arbitrary perl-application. > > > > * start_server originates from the same tarball as perl(Server::Starter), so it > > will be updated at the same time. > > According to guidelines on requiring base package, "It is almost always better > to over specify the version, so it's best practice to just use a fully > versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}". Otherwise its Can we have some common sense, please? "almost better" != "is better". > possible to "yum update perl-Server-Starter" and end up with new module and > older start_service script. This would only do harm if perl(Server::Starter)'s API changes. Openly said, if the start_server script was packaged as a separate source tarball, we wouldn't be discussing this topic at all. > APPROVED (with explicit requires in sub-package). I'll do so under explict *protest*. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review