Sure, that would be reasonable. The downside would be that the repo would no longer contain everything needed for building xpra exactly as delivered. Another option would be to provide two repositories, one with the complete build toolchain, the other with just the minimum required for installing just xpra. Either way, it looks like I will have to spend more time on packaging still..
Cheers Antoine On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:22 PM, Neal Becker <[email protected]> wrote: > Would it be reasonable to provide only centos packages, not fedora > packages, which should already be provided in standard fedora repo? > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Antoine Martin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On 19/08/14 18:06, Neal Becker wrote: > > > I just noticed I have an update for Cython (fedora 20) > > > > > > Why would winswitch package Cython? > > > > > > Just to increase my surprise, I maintain Cython for Fedora. I also > > > noticed Fedora Cython package is about 9M, which winswitch version > > > is 2M. > > Never mind, I've just remembered why that is (I did that) > > http://xpra.org/trac/changeset/7060/xpra > > We don't want any external dependencies like EPEL. > > Just vanilla CentOS / Fedora systems as base. > > > > Antoine > > _______________________________________________ > > shifter-users mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.devloop.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/shifter-users > > > _______________________________________________ > shifter-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.devloop.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/shifter-users > _______________________________________________ shifter-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.devloop.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/shifter-users
