On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 07:57:22PM -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 23:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 06:12:14PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2006 at 09:30:02AM -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > > > > Even if I had stayed with 1.2.X packages there would have been problems > > > > coexisting with the atrpms repository... > > > > > > Why? This only happens if you ignore that these packages exist > > > and are used by a large number of people. > > > > No answer on this one? > > If atrpms and FE both have asterisk packages it would be difficult to > use both repos at the same time. In any case, the fact that a package > exists in another repo is not a good enough reason to keep it out of FE. But it would make sense to provide an upgrade path or seek any kind of coordination, or not? Instead the situation you created is that neither non-ATrpms users, nor ATrpms users could make any use of asterisk at all. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpw2dUSBOBAh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
