Merge Review: libgpod

[Todd Zullinger]

Denis Leroy wrote:
> The package seems to deal with two different tarballs, and generate
> libgpod (0.4.2) and compat-libgpod (0.3.2) from the same spec file.
>
> This is somewhat unusual, should this get review approval ? I would
> prefer if the package were split in two personally.

The compat-libgpod package is only generated for FC6 and isn't part of
the F7/devel branch.  I did the review on the devel branch only, as it
seemed to me that the other branches weren't relevant for the purposes
of the merge.  Is that not the case?

I was the one who submitted the changes to Alex for the compat-libgpod
package in the FC6 spec.  I believe Alex suggested that since it was
going to be short-lived there wasn't too much reason to make it a
separate package.  I'm not sure what the policy or standard practice
is regarding compat- packages.  Pointers and examples would be
welcome, of course, even if it's not totally relevant in this case.

BTW, apologies for not adding a link to the bug in my previous post.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226022

-- 
Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
======================================================================
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
and I'm not sure about the the universe.
     -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 542 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070202/e3744d17/attachment.sig>