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=438608 --- Comment #14 from Matthias Saou <matthias@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-10-10 08:19:46 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13) > * The original elisa-common split was fine, IMO. No need to duplicate > files. And no need to add a virtual elisa-devel. We have tools in > non-devel packages that are BuildRequires. elisa-common can be BR, > too. Indeed. What about using the "elisa-base" name instead of common or devel? I just thought of it, as those files are indeed common to the runtime and the build of elisa, but not to be required by anything else, only build required. So the name "elisa-base" seems better suited, since those files are the basic elisa files. Sounds good? > * The %description could explain briefly what "good set of plugins" > means and why it matters. I'll update to : This package contains the good set of plugins for the Elisa Media Center, plugins which are considered stable and do not present any licensing issues. > * 0.5.13 is available. > > Packaging-wise this is fine. Could be imported and developed further > in cvs until the deps are ready, too. I'm assuming you mean the main "elisa" package. Seems like a good idea, I'll do that. Thanks for all your comments. -- 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