Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498194 --- Comment #18 from Jeroen van Meeuwen <[email protected]> 2009-11-08 16:47:28 EDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #16) > > I agree with what you're saying here, but all of these are separate > > components > > to the Zarafa architecture, and can be installed on separate servers. > > We need to think about whether it will be done that way, not whether it can be > done. Even for the rare cases where an admin will be splitting out parts of > the > services he will probably not mind installing the bundle but using only part > of > it. > Well then have you got some arguments for or against what I've put in c#13? It makes no sense to me to go all philosophical on the issue. It's more efficient to address the facts, especially since -like I said- upstream likes the concept. > > This is going upstream, yes ;-) > > Well, the argument above was "Upstream packaging is doing something not really > Fedoraish, but since it's upstream let's adopt Fedora's package to do the > same" > which we should not do as we only follow upstream on the code level and > hopefully know better how to package bits for Fedora. > > So the decision on granularity of package should remain a distribution's > choice, and if upstream has decided to package up differently, then how is > this > "going upstream"? This argument makes no sense to me. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list [email protected] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
