Re: "the rpm question" - summary

To: <fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "the rpm question" - summary
From: "Ingo T. Storm" <ingo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 20:02:34 +0100
References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0310310521120.29232@devel.capslock.lan> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0311081437550.2545@swampfox.owlriver.com> <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop>
Reply-to: fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx
Sender: fedora-legacy-list-admin@xxxxxxxxxx

> Only a slight correction. 

I apologize. I should have been silent (and read instead) even longer.

Ingo

References:
- fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)
  - From: Axel Thimm
- fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades?
  - From: Axel Thimm
- Re: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades?
  - From: R P Herrold
- "the rpm question" - summary
  - From: Ingo T. Storm
- Re: "the rpm question" - summary
  - From: Warren Togami