Major version upgrades - acceptable if in number only?
cickumqt at gmail.com
Sat Jan 21 00:53:31 UTC 2012
Well.this is just a plugin?
If so,Ithink so.
My personal blog is http://cicku.me,hope you can visit and say
something about it.
More Contact info see here:http://about.me/cicku
On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 12:04:18PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 20 January 2012 11:12, Russell Golden <niveusluna at www.niveusluna.org> wrote:
>> > I maintain mozilla-https-everywhere, and upstream is going to release
>> > version 2.0 soon. I hope. Anyway. If 2.0's only changes are new
>> > supported sites, would it be acceptable to push it to EPEL, or should
>> > I just use the repo I already have on repos.fedorapeople.org? If
>> > indeed the only change is new rulesets, backporting would make the
>> > resulting package 1.x in name only.
>> I think this would be ok.
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
More information about the epel-devel-list