David Bogen wrote: > The bug report cited in the "leak" thread mentioned this: > > 'Unfortunately, this will "break" RPM if the files are replaced. So, > please be careful and keep the backups of the files and run your test.' > > The files that I got from your last e-mail do seem to help the situation > (according to preliminary results) on a test system, but now I'm > concerned about what sort of obstacles I've created for future upgrades. > > Will future RPMs give me trouble because I've replaced these files? Or, > do I need to keep my backups of the originals around forever and > remember to replace the originals before applying future upgrades? > No. Future versions of fds will be much more easily upgradeable in this respect. This will (hopefully) be the last version that has these sorts of packaging issues. So for now, don't worry about it. > David > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > Fedora-directory-users mailing list > Fedora-directory-users at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 3178 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20060821/fda12ae9/attachment.bin
