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=809114 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Dieter <[email protected]> 2012-04-04 06:06:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #2) > > I have wondered whether it would make sense to package novacomd as > > novacom-server, novacom as novacom-client and have a metapackage, novacom, > > that > > installs both. What do you think? > I'd let the original names for each package, as recommended by the guidelines, > and add a Requires on novacomd in the novacom package, since the client cannot > work without the service. Novacom can actually connect to a novacomd server on a different machine, which is why I'd prefer not to have a hard requires on novacomd. Having said that, if you feel strongly about it, we can do the hard requires. > If novacom and novacomd were available from the same source, I'd even package > it as a single RPM. ACK. It would make life *way* easier, but, unfortunately, HP has seen fit to release them as two separate sources. > (In reply to comment #3) > > If you also could include icon and .desktop file for novaterm. > > > > Something like: > > > > > > [Desktop Entry] > > Version=1.0 > > Name=Novaterm > > Comment=Novaterm for command line access to WebOS device > > Exec=/home/pliszka/palm/novacom/novaterm > > Icon=/home/pliszka/icons/Palm_logo_2003.svg > > Terminal=true > > Type=Application > > Categories=Own; > > > This comment is rather relative to the novacom package. I don't think > providing > a desktop file for novaterm is worthy since novacom is clearly described as a > set of command-line tools. +1 -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
