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
Forgot to touch the fedora-cvs flag.
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?
I'm OK with everything that wouldn't require rereviewing freenx* and would allow me to keep separate specfiles for *-server and *-client :)
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.
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.
(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?
> 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.
OK, I submitted bug #441186 and bug #441187 and put you in the reviewer's slot. Thanks in advance!
Thanks again, I'll close this bug as the split is done.