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 #6 from Mohamed El Morabity <[email protected]> 2012-04-04 06:16:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > (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. I've just discover the remote connection options for novacomd... And it works ^^. So you're right, it's useless to force such a Requires. Forget about my comment on novacom too, then. -- 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
