On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 10:46:00 -0400 (EDT)
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Filing a new package review for a simple meta-package seems like
overkill
to me. I'd just amend the openlmi-providers package to also produce a
sub-package named "openlmi".
Hm. Why didn't I think of this? You're right, of course.
Also, I agree with the plan above for what packages to depend on
except for
sblim-cmpi-base. That shouldn't be explicitly required by the metapackage,
it should be pulled in as a dep for openlmi-providers. This way we only
have one place to change things if we switch the package providing
LinuxComputer.
True as well. I'll send a patch for the spec file.
Thanks and regards,
--
Tomáš Smetana
Platform Engineering, Red Hat