up-imapproxy (Re: Summary - Broken dependencies in Fedora Extras 5 - 2006-04-20)

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Fri Apr 21 16:48:18 UTC 2006

On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 14:32:54 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:

> > This is in bugzilla as
> > 
> >   https://bugzilla.redhat.com/185729  (and in the tracker bugs, too)
> > 
> > but the package maintainer has not responded in over a month.
> He responded to me once in private; I forwarded it privately to a
> potential maintainer.
> > As soon as the buildsys server is reachable
> > again, the packages will be removed from the repository, since they are broken
> > anyway. 
> Agreed
> > Does it make sense to keep the fc4 packages? (I don't think so)
> Why do you think so? 
> I vote for leaving it around in FC4 (but if there are good reasons to
> remove it from FC4 I'm fine with removing it).

The broken FC4->FC5 upgrade path is a good reason to remove it from all
branches. And some day we'll need a solution for orphans anyway.

Btw, the broken deps report is incomplete. An update of repoclosure
is needed to make it look at only the newest packages for dependencies.
It didn't catch the pilot-link ABI downgrade, because the old package
is still in the repositories - http://bugzilla.redhat.com/189585

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list