Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: report-mirror - Fedora MirrorManager client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445126 ------- Additional Comments From rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-15 12:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > I haven't had time to package the rest of MM (it's going to require some patches > to make it comply to the TurboGears packaging standard). I just noticed someone > else CC'ed themselves to this review. Would it be an issue to stub out an MM > package, and just have the 'client' subpackage for now? That's up to you. Does the client without a server make any sense? > The newer package would > have a later NVR, wouldn't have to dead.package and block this one, and all in > all a cleaner solution. This won't fly, if the "client" and the "server" share the same upstream source tarball (and thus src.rpm-package-name). In this case, it's much easier to build everything from this one tarball and to gradually add subpackages being built from a common tarball "when they are ready". ... or (and preferred) resubmit your package when you have "finished packaging" and consider it "done" ... It's what almost all other contributors do. > Or must the entire thing be packaged at once? That's the preferred way. The real decision however is tied to "upstream", whether they ship one single tarball or several tarballs. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review