[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
libdbi package
- From: Mihai Maties <mihai xcyb org>
- To: fedora-extras-list redhat com
- Subject: libdbi package
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 10:55:15 +0200
I filed a bug last summer about the libdbi package being extremely outdated.
( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/beta/show_bug.cgi?id=126421 )
Considering the fact that no other core package requires libdbi I believe that
this package definitely belongs in Extras.
Please review the following spec files and tell me what do you think about
them:
http://rpms.xcyb.org/other/libdbi.spec
http://rpms.xcyb.org/other/libdbi-drivers.spec
[ Ignore the "linuxdist.sh" call and the "xcyb" tag from the name, I'll remove
them before offically submitting the specs to extras. ]
For the moment I'm just curious what do you think about the way I splitted the
packages and what would be the next course of action considering the fact
that for FC3 libdbi already exists in Core. Is there a policy (like it was in
fedora.us) to not provide an extras package newer than the one in core ?
Mihai
--
This message was scanned for spam and viruses by BitDefender.
For more information please visit http://linux.bitdefender.com/
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]