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 #25 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtas...@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2009-03-26 10:22:33 EDT --- Sorry for late reply. (In reply to comment #24) > 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! I don't think we can provide srpm which cannot build within Fedora's policy and which needs fixing to compile. -- 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
