fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)

[Lamar Owen]

On Friday 07 November 2003 03:06 pm, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> Make it 3 then...  I support Warren's suggestion.  Perhaps others
> will speak up too if it is something up for democratic vote.  If
> it's not up for democratic vote, hail Warren!

4.  I mentioned the fact that Red Hat had already set the precedent back with 
some errata packages for RPM with RHL 6.2, 7, and others.

By way of introduction, since everyone else is doing them, my qualifications, 
etc, are as follows...

I have maintained the PostgreSQL RPMset since July of 1999, and had my RPM 
work includedby Red Hat as part of RHL 6.1.  I have built various other RPMs 
for my use, and have provided a few for other projects over the years, 
including the BibleTime SWORD project KDE reader.  I have actively used and 
developed on Red Hat Linux since version 4.1 in April 1997.  I am one of the 
few enterprise users of the Aurora Linux distribution on a network of 
UltraSPARCs at PARI.  I have operated an internet radio site (on Red Hat 
Linux and RealAudio) since May 1997.  I have recovered from a root 
compromise.  I currently maintain the AOLserver PostgreSQL driver.

And I of course try to show the benefits of Linux and open source at every 
opportunity to every one.

A couple of things about me that are rather unusual among open source people 
is that I am a duly ordained Baptist minister and am a professor at Anchor 
Baptist Bible College, teaching English amongst other courses.
-- 
(Rev.) Lamar Owen
Director of Information Technology
Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute
1 PARI Drive
Rosman, NC  28772
(828)862-5554
www.pari.edu