[Bug 445126] Review Request: report-mirror - Fedora MirrorManager client

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: report-mirror - Fedora MirrorManager client


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445126





------- Additional Comments From rc040203 at freenet.de  2008-05-15 12:00 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> I haven't had time to package the rest of MM (it's going to require some patches
> to make it comply to the TurboGears packaging standard).  I just noticed someone
> else CC'ed themselves to this review.  Would it be an issue to stub out an MM
> package, and just have the 'client' subpackage for now?
That's up to you. Does the client without a server make any sense?

>  The newer package would
> have a later NVR, wouldn't have to dead.package and block this one, and all in
> all a cleaner solution.
This won't fly, if the "client" and the "server" share the same upstream source
tarball (and thus src.rpm-package-name). 

In this case, it's much easier to build everything from this one tarball and to
gradually add subpackages being built from a common tarball "when they are
ready". ... or (and preferred) resubmit your package when you have "finished
packaging" and consider it "done" ... It's what almost all other contributors do.

> Or must the entire thing be packaged at once?
That's the preferred way. The real decision however is tied to 
"upstream", whether they ship one single tarball or several tarballs.


-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.