https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=852329 Alan Pevec <apevec@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |apevec@xxxxxxxxx Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags| |fedora-review- Last Closed| |2012-08-30 06:19:52 --- Comment #7 from Alan Pevec <apevec@xxxxxxxxx> --- > every package in EPEL should have one in RHEL channels? What I was saying is that every pkg in EPEL can only depend on base RHEL + optional repo. So even if you move hooks to e.g. /usr/libexec/vdsm-hook to avoid direct vdms dependency, which would solve http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership but then we're hitting http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packages_which_are_not_useful_without_external_bits Considering this, I recommend to provide vdsm-hooks RPM in a separate unsupported repo at ovirt.org, last spec w/ vdms dep is good enough, if you document clearly that it depends on RHEV channel which contains vdsm. -- 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