Bug 438660

Summary:	freenx -> freenx-{server,client} split
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm>
Component:	freenx	Assignee:	Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	low	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	rawhide	CC:	gwync, kevin
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2008-04-24 08:38:29 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:	441186, 441187
Bug Blocks:

Description Axel Thimm 2008-03-24 09:44:36 UTC

The upstream project freenx split its sources into a freenx-server and a
freenx-client tarball. From now on these two will be released with their own
schedule and version. Therefore it makes sense to split the package as well into
two (source) packages.

Since the current freenx package is closer to what freenx-server is, it's
probably best to rename freenx to freenx-server and create a new freenx-client
package.

Package Change Request
======================
Old Package Name: freenx
New Package Name: freenx-server
Additional Package Name: freenx-client

Comment 1 Axel Thimm 2008-03-24 10:08:25 UTC

Forgot to touch the fedora-cvs flag.

Comment 2 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-24 15:48:37 UTC

Instead of renaming, would you be ok with just making new freenx-server and
freenx-client packages and then following the end of life procedure for the
freenx package? 

That way we would have cvs history in the old package if anyone needed it, and
the new ones would start out fresh when they were added, also if anyone looked
at freenx they would see the dead.package there that told them to look in
freenx-server/freenx-client... 

Thoughts?

Comment 3 Axel Thimm 2008-03-25 17:39:48 UTC

I'm OK with everything that wouldn't require rereviewing freenx* and would allow
me to keep separate specfiles for *-server and *-client :)

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-26 16:06:59 UTC

Well, unfortunately, looking at it further it looks like these are totally split
new releases upstream, so I think reviewing should be done on them. ;( 

Do you have packages ready for them? 

If you could submit them and cc me, I would be happy to try and quickly review
them and get them in as painlessly as possible.

Comment 5 Dennis Gilmore 2008-03-27 15:00:05 UTC

Axel you should submit new packages for review.  im going to unset the cvs
request.  If you CC Kevin he has offered to review them.

Comment 6 Axel Thimm 2008-03-27 19:27:10 UTC

(In reply to comment #4)
> Well, unfortunately, looking at it further it looks like these are totally split
> new releases upstream, so I think reviewing should be done on them. ;( 

All that has changed in the server component is the addition of a Makefile ...

> If you could submit them and cc me, I would be happy to try and quickly review
> them and get them in as painlessly as possible. 

Painless was the method I was looking for. I'll prepare packages and resubmit
them. New bugzillas or this one?

Comment 7 Kevin Fenzi 2008-03-27 20:58:30 UTC

> All that has changed in the server component is the addition of a Makefile ...

Cool. Should be a super quick review. ;) 

> Painless was the method I was looking for. I'll prepare packages and resubmit
> them. New bugzillas or this one?

New ones might be easier so they block all the right stuff and have Review
Request, etc.

Comment 8 Axel Thimm 2008-04-07 03:36:21 UTC

OK, I submitted bug #441186 and bug #441187 and put you in the reviewer's slot.
Thanks in advance!

Comment 9 Axel Thimm 2008-04-24 08:38:29 UTC

Thanks again, I'll close this bug as the split is done.