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=452211 --- Comment #11 from Jochen Roth <jroth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-09-29 12:29:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10) > Jochen: Do you care whether your spu-binutils.spec is used or a > spu-binutils.spec based on binutils.spec is used? Particularly given that we > have to target Fedora 11 at this stage? No, that's fine for me. The only question I have is how we'd keep binutils.spec and spu-binutils.spec in sync. Two different spec files would still mean that we have two different packages (binutils and spu-binutils), wouldn't it? Or is there any way besides the "virtual packaging" like running rpmbuild within a .spec file? I thought that the easiest and fastest way might be to create the spu-binutils package according to the way avr-binutils does. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review