On Thu, 2005-12-29 at 12:57 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 12/29/05, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But if the maintainer is the same in livna and extras I don't see a big > > problem -- yes, it's a problem, but has anybody a better solution? > > Its only a problem in the context of this "protectbase by default" discussion. None of those are "base" packages, but you won't find me complaining if livna took the Fedora sox spec file and added libmad-devel and lame-devel to the BuildRequires ... which would be a "base" package being replaced ... -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
