https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859246
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <[email protected]> --- I thought I sent this ages ago, but I saw it still sitting in the browser. Sorry for that. I honestly don't have any idea which way would be best, but I wouldn't object to a metapackage for this kind of thing even though they are generally frowned upon. This just seems to be one of the cases where it makes the most sense. Note that I wasn't suggesting they be subpackages, but simply N different packages (one per independent, separately released and versioned tarball). Which does mean a number of reviews, but I'd take care of them for you. As for documentation, whatever is appropriate makes sense. Since they would be independent, you'd need licensing information if it's included anywhere, and I say that the document indicating current versions of each of the tables within the tarballs would be appropriate to go in each of the packages, since it applies separately. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VVpvDFsNKp&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
