Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
--- Comment #25 from Mamoru Tasaka <mtasaka(a)ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> 2009-03-26
10:22:33 EDT ---
Sorry for late reply.
(In reply to comment #24)
I'll explain my plan a little further because it may be a little
Since this package is a little hard to package (with or without mod_passenger),
I was thinking I could ship rubygem-passenger, and out-comment all the parts
that have to do with mod_passenger (and thus not ship, compile or include
mod_passenger itself, just the .spec semantics, out-commented). That way,
downstream users that want mod_passenger can derive from the .spec and .srpm
already in Fedora.
However, my primary concern is that we would be shipping an intolerable SRPM
(since the conflicting licenses prevent the sources from being shipped together
Could you let me know what you think? Thanks!
I don't think we can provide srpm which cannot build within Fedora's
policy and which needs fixing to compile.
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.