about php-qa, phpUnderControl and meta packages
christof at damian.net
Thu Jun 3 07:25:06 UTC 2010
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 23:52, Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:
> The obvious response here is 'so, package CruiseControl too!' If you
> can't package CruiseControl, then you shouldn't package phpUnderControl;
> it's frowned upon / not allowed (I can never remember which) to package
> something which requires something that can't go into Fedora for some
OK, that is what I thought. I might have a look at packaging
CruiseControl in the future, but I can't really see having a
CruiseControl and a phpUnderControlCruiseControl, because that would
be frowned upon even by me :-)
I also don't really want to package CruiceControl, because it is Java
and I just don't understand it enough. It seems to be very specific
where you place your data files.
> For whatever reason, We Don't Like Metapackages and the 'recommended'
> way to do it is with a package group. I've never seen a particularly
> coherent reason given for this, but never mind. Some packagers _have_
> done metapackages, and none of them have been shot yet. Just sayin'.
It would be good to have this in the packaging guidelines somewhere.
All I could find were random threads in mailing list, none of them
with an official conclusion as far as I could seen.
I guess I will leave both packages for now and create my own
repository with just those two and see how it is working out.
More information about the devel