On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 05:12 +0700, Fajar Priyanto wrote:
> On Friday 31 March 2006 12:12 am, Craig White wrote:
> > the thread on the fedora-list has pointed out that the denyhosts rpm
> > packaging by rpmforge is deficient when compared to the packaging done
> > in fedora extras which correlates to all the extra steps necessary in
> > your write up.
> >
> > you might want to...
> >
> > 1 - provide a suggestion to rpmforge of the post-install scripts used in
> > the spec file of the fedora-extras packaging so rpmforge does the same
> >
> > 2 - provide a suggestion to rpmforge that they remove the fedora-core 4
> > & 5 packages since fedora-extras is packaging them already and there is
> > a conflict
>
> I'm sure Dag is monitoring this list. By the way, is it ok to use FC package
> in Centos? How far is the compatibility? Or is it that we shouldn't use it at
> all for the sake of security and stability?
----
you got me there. I know that dag's package is a noarch package and it
is AFAICT just python scripts so I don't know why the fedora package is
labeled arch specific. Probably should ask Tibbits on that.
Craig
