[Bug 498194] Review Request: zarafa - Zarafa Outlook Sharing and Open Source Collaboration

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=498194





--- Comment #17 from Axel Thimm <axel.thimm at atrpms.net>  2009-11-08 16:02:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> (In reply to comment #15)
> > If there are sane use cases where users will really need only parts of the
> > package then split the package there, but splitting for splitting's sake (e.g.
> > like clamav) is not good.
> 
> I agree with what you're saying here, but all of these are separate components
> to the Zarafa architecture, and can be installed on separate servers.

We need to think about whether it will be done that way, not whether it can be
done. Even for the rare cases where an admin will be splitting out parts of the
services he will probably not mind installing the bundle but using only part of
it.

> > Also relying on an external vendor's packaging style is also not sane - when we
> > say that Fedora follows upstream we mean the source code, not the packaging
> > practice. Of course the other way, e.g. persuading upstream packaging to lean
> > on our package style is always fine. :)  
> 
> This is going upstream, yes ;-)  

Well, the argument above was "Upstream packaging is doing something not really
Fedoraish, but since it's upstream let's adopt Fedora's package to do the same"
which we should not do as we only follow upstream on the code level and
hopefully know better how to package bits for Fedora.

So the decision on granularity of package should remain a distribution's
choice, and if upstream has decided to package up differently, then how is this
"going upstream"?

-- 
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.