[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: snort ?

On Thu, 2005-02-03 at 17:49 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:07:42 -0600, Daniel Wittenberg wrote:
> > > Nobody said that.  Apparently, the rpms are not ready.  
> > 
> > Are you still looking at the ancient ones?
> No. 2.3.something, but you never link a specific src.rpm, so better do
> that. [Did you miss my comment in bugzilla?]

The URL was posted for the latest RPMs, but I assumed people could fill
in FC 1/2/3 and get the latest.  So instead I just posted the exact URL
for the 2.3.0 src.rpm.

>  - A candidate source rpm which is considered "ready",
>  - which is roughly the same quality as other packages in Fedora
>    Extras,
>  - and a sponsor who would serve as a proxy to CVS for updates
>    until Fedora Extras is ready to accept project contributors
>    and create accounts for them.
> Revised package submission and QA policies for Fedora Extras are not known
> yet. So, fedora.us documents should be taken as a good guideline.

I'm not bitching here, so don't take this wrong, I'm merely curious, but
if the submission and QA policies aren't set doesn't that make it hard
to say the RPM is "ready", since there are no guidelines to follow for
that?  We have been rebuilding and using these RPM's in production with
little changes to the .spec or other code for awhile, so I think they
are working and ready, but may not conform to "official" specs, whatever
those might be.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]