On 2013-11-18 22:15, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:

Le 18 nov. 2013 21:52, "Sérgio Basto" <sergio@serjux.com> a écrit :
>
> On Seg, 2013-11-18 at 21:36 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> > On 2013-11-18 20:29, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > > On Sex, 2013-11-15 at 19:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >> I wrote:
> > >>> And if FPC doesn't feel competent, they should say so so we can re-file
> > >>> the ticket with FESCo (or they could just forward it to FESCo directly).
> > >> Actually, I see FPC made a decision now, that's good.
> > > And what was decision ? , I don't understand what is write in the
> > > ticket .
> > >
> > It basically boils down to that the main lpf package is OK for fedora,
> > while lpf-* packages as lpf-skype and lpf-spotify-client should be in a
> > 'more appropriate repository' (Don't mention the war...)
> >
> > I have retired lpf-spotify-client from fedora. lpf-skype and
> > lpf-spotify-client are on their way into rpmfusion in tickets 3033 and
> > 3034 in a joint venture between me and Simone Caronni.
>
> I will join in with "Adobe flash reader", it is possible ?

Is it possible to only handle the adobe-release* repositories instead ? Unless all thoses adobe packages are really broken ?

Nicolas (kwizart)

It was a long time since I looked into Adobe Reader... are you saying there are already existing packages out there from Adobe?

If so, it does not fit that well into the lpf framework. One could download the package, unpack it in %prep and rebuild it it %build and %install - but doing this without adding value seems strange, and might also cause legal concerns depending on the license.

OTOH such a recipe might e. g., generate more accurate dependencies if upstream's are broken. Which, according to my *very* old Adobe experiences would be as expected. In general, it makes a lot of sense to treat an Ubuntu .deb package this way - this is what the spotify package does.

--alec