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=467402 --- Comment #4 from Levente Farkas <lfarkas@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-03 06:26:32 EDT --- for #2 epel build already break:-( for #3 i assume all fedora packages should have to follow the guidelines eg: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag the purpose of such guidelines that the same spec file should have to be build on _both_ fedora X and epel (or at least try to keep fedora and epel spec file as close to each other as possible). my goal was to create such packages which is working on both fedora X and epel. most production software are build on rhel/centos and if it's build for that the the windows binary of the same source would be useful to build on the same host with the same gtk, glib, gcc etc. i know the main purpose of these packages to build virt-manager and friends on fedora and windows and that the current rhel/centos is almost unusable with the shipped virt-manager, kvm etc. (that's the point i rebuild many of them on epel from fedora), but the goal should have to be that this packages when stabilized be included in rhel too. still most of the people wouldn't like to use fedora as their server, but may be rhel-5.x eg: 5.4 can contain a newer virt-manager and kvm (although it require newer kernel module too). and yes i know you make no claims to be able to use these packages on epel, but wouldn't be nice? as it's require only a little effort... -- 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