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=693425 --- Comment #23 from Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-12 13:01:41 EDT --- ( > I still have 3 points, please advise: > 1. IMHO it's better to have 1x spec file for both client and server (and any > meta-packages, if needed). I don't think the combined server/client approach will pass the formal review. My own personal opinion is the same. The arguments: - Using the combined approach, the it's not possible to meet the Naming Guidelines. - The client and the server package does not depend on each other in any way from installation point of view. - Using sub-packages this way is not as intended and implies more or less two sub-packages and an empty base package. Current main package is just one file server/README, which sort of says it all. - The code becomes cluttered with if-defs in dependencies and pushd/popd in a lot of code, which makes it less legible. - The combined approach does not scale to the web client or other stuff. Bottom line: Separate spec file for each source is so much easier that it justifies the extra lines to maintain. My opinion is also that it's a requirement to pass the formal review. -- 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