https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969718 --- Comment #10 from Sergio Monteiro Basto <sergio@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Oron Peled from comment #8) Generally approved , I have to see better point 2 ... (In reply to Oron Peled from comment #9) > (in reply to comment #5) > > * Yes, devscripts is also valuable in its own right. > > * I'm willing to work on it and maintain it. > Would you have time to review it? yes, I hope so > * In light of Bug #920163, I was thinking to have the > devscripts source package create a "devscripts-generic" > subpackage with all the "non-Debian-specific" scripts. > Obviously, "devscripts" would Require devscripts-generic. Lets build devscripts , let me know what is the bug number. I don't see any need of split in sub-packages, but don't care about it. I'm more concerned how we resolve Bug #920163, maybe because rpmdevtools have some scripts of devscripts, makes sense have a sub-package for what rpmdevtools have ... I don't know just an idea. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5Ue1lirlN8&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review