Re: redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership

On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 16:00 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 11:25:43PM +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote: On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote: Hello, I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game redeclipse[0], which

redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership

? Should I abort it and push a new one (and go through the review process?), or should I let it go and fix this in a subsequent update; how critical are unowned dirs like this? Thanks. -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: redeclipse: packaging symlinks and directory ownership

On Mon, 2012-05-28 at 19:31 +0200, Martin Erik Werner wrote: Hello, I have a couple of packaging questions for a new package, the FPS game redeclipse[0], which are currently in testing[1]. 1. I have three resulting binary packages {redeclipse, redeclipse-server, redeclipse-data} where

Self introduction

://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739313 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799778 -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman

Re: Non-free tarball checked in

? -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Enet update for Red Eclipse packaging, request for help

/view.php?id=74 Thanks. -- Martin Erik Werner martinerikwer...@gmail.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel