Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: report-mirror - Fedora MirrorManager client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445126
------- Additional Comments From rc040203@freenet.de 2008-05-15 12:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10)
I haven't had time to package the rest of MM (it's going to require some patches to make it comply to the TurboGears packaging standard). I just noticed someone else CC'ed themselves to this review. Would it be an issue to stub out an MM package, and just have the 'client' subpackage for now?
That's up to you. Does the client without a server make any sense?
The newer package would have a later NVR, wouldn't have to dead.package and block this one, and all in all a cleaner solution.
This won't fly, if the "client" and the "server" share the same upstream source tarball (and thus src.rpm-package-name).
In this case, it's much easier to build everything from this one tarball and to gradually add subpackages being built from a common tarball "when they are ready". ... or (and preferred) resubmit your package when you have "finished packaging" and consider it "done" ... It's what almost all other contributors do.
Or must the entire thing be packaged at once?
That's the preferred way. The real decision however is tied to "upstream", whether they ship one single tarball or several tarballs.