On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 23:52, Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
The obvious response here is 'so, package CruiseControl too!'
If you
can't package CruiseControl, then you shouldn't package phpUnderControl;
it's frowned upon / not allowed (I can never remember which) to package
something which requires something that can't go into Fedora for some
reason.
OK, that is what I thought. I might have a look at packaging
CruiseControl in the future, but I can't really see having a
CruiseControl and a phpUnderControlCruiseControl, because that would
be frowned upon even by me :-)
I also don't really want to package CruiceControl, because it is Java
and I just don't understand it enough. It seems to be very specific
where you place your data files.
For whatever reason, We Don't Like Metapackages and the
'recommended'
way to do it is with a package group. I've never seen a particularly
coherent reason given for this, but never mind. Some packagers _have_
done metapackages, and none of them have been shot yet. Just sayin'.
It would be good to have this in the packaging guidelines somewhere.
All I could find were random threads in mailing list, none of them
with an official conclusion as far as I could seen.
I guess I will leave both packages for now and create my own
repository with just those two and see how it is working out.
Cheers,
Christof