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

libdbi package

I filed a bug last summer about the libdbi package being extremely outdated.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 


[ 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 ?


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]