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=470696 --- Comment #24 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <kana...@kanarip.com> 2009-03-17 09:33:28 EDT --- I'll explain my plan a little further because it may be a little controversial. Since this package is a little hard to package (with or without mod_passenger), I was thinking I could ship rubygem-passenger, and out-comment all the parts that have to do with mod_passenger (and thus not ship, compile or include mod_passenger itself, just the .spec semantics, out-commented). That way, downstream users that want mod_passenger can derive from the .spec and .srpm already in Fedora. However, my primary concern is that we would be shipping an intolerable SRPM (since the conflicting licenses prevent the sources from being shipped together as one). Could you let me know what you think? Thanks! -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
