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=809114 --- Comment #7 from Jonathan Dieter <jdieter@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-04 06:20:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > > (In reply to comment #4) > > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as > > > > novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, that > > > > installs both. What do you think? > > > I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, > > > and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot > > > work without the service. > > > > Novacom can actually connect to a novacomd server on a different machine, which > > is why I'd prefer not to have a hard requires on novacomd. Having said that, > > if you feel strongly about it, we can do the hard requires. > > > I've just discover the remote connection options for novacomd... And it works > ^^. So you're right, it's useless to force such a Requires. Forget about my > comment on novacom too, then. Ok, which brings me back to the original question. As the most common scenario is to have both server and client on the same machine, should we have novacom-server, novacom-client and novacom which brings in both? -- 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