https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133479
--- Comment #7 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.mich...@gmx.net> ---
> each package has (to have) a license.
>
> This is kind of hacky, but not forbidden.
It is highly questionable to create an empty src.rpm for a meta package instead
of creating the same meta package as a _subpackage_ of an already existing
src.rpm. There is no vdsm related package where this could be added?
Please give more details about why this must be a new src.rpm and how this
package or its name will be used.
| %global libname vdsm-arch-dependencies
|
| Name: %{libname}
Only to use %libname once in the entire spec file? So far, this package and the
review request look like some half-baked idea. Has it been discussed anywhere
before submitting a review request?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
