Introduction

[Hans de Goede]

Hi,

Happy new year all!

On 01/03/2010 08:53 PM, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 7:40 AM, John Arntz<jsarntz at yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> Greetings!
>
> Welcome!
>
>> My name is John S. Arntz I just signed up for this list and would like to introduce myself. I have used Fedora since Fedora 5 and love the packages that RPMFusion offers (Before RPMFusion I used FreshRPMs). I'm not a programmer, but I know enough to make a basic package. I plan to make my first package submission to Bugzilla soon, fceux, an NES Emulator based on FCE Ultra. My first question, though, where would be a good place to host the .spec and .srpm files? I don't have a website anwhere. I'm aware of sites like rapidshare, megaupload, qshare, and mediafire. But I'm not sure if those would be the best places to host the files. Once I am able to find a place to post them, I will take the plunge and file my submission for review.
>
> I know these, but AFAIK they only use Italian language:
>
> http://it.altervista.org/
> http://xoom.virgilio.it/
>
>> Also, the source contains gfceux which is a GTK Glade frontend based on GFCE Ultra. How should I handle packaging this? Should I make them two separate packages and submissions, since they are actually two builds included in
>>   the same tarball and have to be built separately, or as a sub-package of fceux? The .spec files that I have made are based upon fce-ultra and gfce-ultra's .spec files so as they exist now, I have them as two unique packages. You feedback is greatly appreciated.
>
> I disagree with Hans. I would make two separate packages. I still
> don't know why upstream put them in the same tarball. They are
> different programs in every aspect: one is made in C and the other in
> python, they have different build systems and so on. There is no
> correlation between the two. I did ask upstream some time ago about
> releasing different tarball: one for fceux and the other for gceux.
> They told me they would have done so, but it seems they forgot. I
> think it is time someone else nag them :)
>

Yes, that seems like valid reasoning to break the 1 tarbal 1 srpm rule.

Regards,

Hans