https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022283
--- Comment #21 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> ---
=== packaging ===
I still see some minor issues:
- modules/COPYING should not be removed: it is very important because it gives
a right to use the modules almost freely.
- in a couple of places '-n %{name}-<subpackage>' is used, but '<subpackage>'
suffices.
- MODULES.html can be packaged too.
I prepared an updated .spec file (attached) with those changes.
=== the rest ===
> How does your packaging attempt compare to their attempt? What release
> cadence are you planning to maintain? An out-of-date gnulib package is less
> useful than just using gnulib from upstream.
That is a very good question. I think there's a place for gnulib in the
distribution, but indeed, only if it is regularly updated. Mosaab, I'd be happy
to co-maintain the package with you, to ensure that there's always somebody to
prepare the update.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
