On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 09:03:27AM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote: > On Thursday 27 March 2008, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Come on Ville, I already gave an example in the first mail and you > > agreed that this can be done that way. Then you started mumbling > > things about fragile and whatnot. > > I don't know what you're hoping to achieve by coloring things that way. My > fragility/feasibility concerns were there right from the start. Possibility > does not imply feasibility or robustness. > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-March/msg00166.html > > Anyway, without answers that contain some real data to the questions/requests > I've already made in this thread, I have nothing to add so I'll shut up now > until there's more real info available. Sorry, but this becomes bizarre. You are the packager of this particular software and you made some decisions on its layout. By definition you are the one that knows about technical details of this package and how to implement FHS and Fedora's guidelines. But now you ask other people to dig into your package to tell you how to fix it while you already wrote that everything needed is configurable from a /etc/sysconfig file? Which most certainly an rpm script can do whatever it pleases? Including detection of being and upgrade (vs a fresh install) and the usage of a legacy /srv/vdr partition in a %pre script and keep it? I know you are a smart person and that you can solve much more difficult tasks, but I get the feeling, that you just do not want to cooperate in this issue. Please we don't need stumbling blocks to get a clean /srv partition - try to implement the solution that will make everyone glad, from the legacy users to the FPC. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpxqFM1ZDHhc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
