On 02/02/11 10:16, Tapio Rantala wrote:
Hi
I saw this from rpmlint:
"W: meego-filelist-empty packages without any files are not allowed in
MeeGo"
>
So, how about meta packages that only exist to provide a name to
require? Are those banned from meego?
And as importantly - does banning them from MeeGo make life difficult for
vendors building on top of MeeGo who may find them useful.
I'd like a way to ensure that packages with no tarball are actually meta
packages and not packaging errors. So can the specfile have something explicit
stating this?
Should meta packages include copyright/license file to make them fit?
The package, however small, has a copyright and license and this should be
provided.
David
--
"Don't worry, you'll be fine; I saw it work in a cartoon once..."
_______________________________________________
MeeGo-packaging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-packaging
