<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-11-18 22:15, Nicolas Chauvet
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CABr+WTn8x1UmdBvKEdyLHTHWciOWohSCAV8cazShS__Rg=PSOw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"><br>
Le 18 nov. 2013 21:52, "Sérgio Basto" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:sergio@serjux.com">sergio@serjux.com</a>>
a écrit :<br>
><br>
> On Seg, 2013-11-18 at 21:36 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:<br>
> > On 2013-11-18 20:29, Sérgio Basto wrote:<br>
> > > On Sex, 2013-11-15 at 19:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler
wrote:<br>
> > >> I wrote:<br>
> > >>> And if FPC doesn't feel competent, they
should say so so we can re-file<br>
> > >>> the ticket with FESCo (or they could just
forward it to FESCo directly).<br>
> > >> Actually, I see FPC made a decision now,
that's good.<br>
> > > And what was decision ? , I don't understand what
is write in the<br>
> > > ticket .<br>
> > ><br>
> > It basically boils down to that the main lpf package
is OK for fedora,<br>
> > while lpf-* packages as lpf-skype and
lpf-spotify-client should be in a<br>
> > 'more appropriate repository' (Don't mention the
war...)<br>
> ><br>
> > I have retired lpf-spotify-client from fedora.
lpf-skype and<br>
> > lpf-spotify-client are on their way into rpmfusion in
tickets 3033 and<br>
> > 3034 in a joint venture between me and Simone Caronni.<br>
><br>
> I will join in with "Adobe flash reader", it is possible ?</p>
<p dir="ltr">Is it possible to only handle the adobe-release*
repositories instead ? Unless all thoses adobe packages are
really broken ?<br>
<br>
<br>
</p>
<p dir="ltr">Nicolas (kwizart)</p>
</blockquote>
It was a long time since I looked into Adobe Reader... are you
saying there are already existing packages out there from Adobe?<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
--alec<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>