[Fedora-packaging] Can multiple packages built from same source?

Hi,

     We have a package already built in Fedora called: ironjacamar, 
which only produces several core jars used by JBoss AS 7. We also want 
to built a ironjacamar standalone environment which can make the 
ironjacamar running without JBoss AS 7 environment, but this standalone 
environment has different libraries than JBoss AS 7 has. So we plan to 
built a overall new package called: ironjacamar-standalone, which 
produces the ironjacamar standalone environment, it will use the same 
source as the package: ironjacamar uses.  I want to know if it is 
approved in Fedora?

--

-- 
BR
Lin Gao

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] Self Introduction

Hi,

     I am new to Fedora community.

     I have 8+ years experiences on JavaEE related work. I joined JBoss 
team at Red Hat 18 months before, now I start to work for JBoss JCA team.

     I am happy to be able to contribute to Fedora community. 

--

-- 
BR
Lin Gao

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] GNULib exception link on FPC trac

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] package: shrinkwrap-descriptors and arquillian

Hi,

   Could you please someone can take a look at the new package requests: 
shrinkwrap-descriptors[1] and arquillian[2]?  Thank you very much!

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=824682
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=824838

--

-- 
BR
Lin Gao

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

http://www.opensmtpd.org/

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] gnome-shell-extension-updater for fedora

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] grive open source client for google drive

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] detailed descriptions of the categories?

Is there a document somewhere that provides a description of each of the
rpm categories? I.e., describing what a software package must do in
order to qualify to be put in that category? I'm creating packages for
some of my software, but it seems like it could fit in three different
categories. (The categories names are quite vague anyway.)

--

-- 
frigidcode.com
indicium.us

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] what do u think about package this owncloud

--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] Moving an existing rpmfusion package into Fedora

Hi all,

I've been getting some conflicting advice as to what to do about moving 
a patent unencumbered version of package that has existed in RPMFusion 
for some time.

The package is qtractor (a digital audio workstation/ sequencer), 
software we'd like to showcase as part of Fedora 18's Audio Spin.
Removing libmad (MP3) library deps was simple enough via a compile time 
flag and a Review request was raised [1]. Using 
audacity/audacity-freeworld as a precedent it was suggested that we 
rename qtractor in RPMfusion to qtractor-freeworld and have it Conflict: 
with Fedora's qtractor.

The problem here is that RPMFusion users may have their libmad version 
silently replaced by the one in Fedora during the transition.

One solution here is to leave qtractor as it is in RPMfusion and rename 
the one in Fedora to something else (qtractor-free?) and perhaps use 
alternatives to permit coexistence, removing the need for conflicts

Is this reasonable?

regards,

Brendan

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=797418
--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

[Fedora-packaging] Manpages using %doc

Hi,

Is it possible for man pages to use the %doc macro in the %files section in a spec file? In Guidelines, there's
no explicit mention of it, and I haven't found a package having this behavior. However, I am reviewing
spacewalk-pylint ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=800899 ), which does this:

	%files
	%doc %{_mandir}/man8/spacewalk-pylint.8*

Can you please give me a stance on that? 

Thank you,

--

-- 
Tomas Radej <tradej <at> redhat.com>
--
packaging mailing list
packaging <at> lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging