On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 21:16:43 -0000, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Summary of broken packages in fedora-extras-5-i386: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > up-imapproxy 1.2.4-4.fc5.i386 > > Summary of broken packages in fedora-extras-5-ppc: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > up-imapproxy 1.2.4-4.fc5.ppc > > Summary of broken packages in fedora-extras-5-x86_64: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > up-imapproxy 1.2.4-4.fc5.x86_64 > > > ====================================================================== > package: up-imapproxy - 1.2.4-4.fc5.i386 from fedora-extras-5-i386 > unresolved deps: > libssl.so.5 > libcrypto.so.5 > > package: up-imapproxy - 1.2.4-4.fc5.x86_64 from fedora-extras-5-x86_64 > unresolved deps: > libssl.so.5()(64bit) > libcrypto.so.5()(64bit) > > package: up-imapproxy - 1.2.4-4.fc5.ppc from fedora-extras-5-ppc > unresolved deps: > libssl.so.5 > libcrypto.so.5 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. The mails sent privately have not bounced. As soon as the buildsys server is reachable again, the packages will be removed from the repository, since they are broken anyway. Does it make sense to keep the fc4 packages? (I don't think so) -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
