Axel Thimm wrote : > As a consequence I will not only need to rebuild all of the asterisk > suite again to pick up the proper dependencies, but also to stop using > Fedora Extras as a repo for build requirements and start using Epoch > on clean packages. Axel, this is frame bait, plain and simple, and I'd really wish you'd omit such comments from discussions in order to first let people understand the problem, then let us all have a constructive discussion about it. These kind of threats will _never_ help, quite the opposite. Back to the initial problem : Extras has included a beta version of asterisk as well as beta versions of the required libraries. So... first question that comes to mind : "Why a beta?" (especially as you state that is has many know problems) I don't know, but you could ask in the review request, or ask Jeffrey C. Ollie directly : https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178922 Note that the release of the package is PLAIN WRONG, and as such the package shouldn't be able to pass the review, and the zaptel package shouldn't have passed its review either : http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a Then the second question : "Why backport to FC5 and not just leave in FC6?". Again, I would have left FC5 alone for such a package, but that's just me. There probably is a reason. Once it is clearer why this decision was made, then we can move forward into the discussion and try to look for solutions to your problem. - Epoch is not the answer. - But what was the question? - It doesn't matter. ;-p Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 5.92 (FC6 Test3) - Linux kernel 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 Load : 0.11 0.13 0.10 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
