[users] SpamAssassin 3.1 in the EL4 branch?
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Mon May 8 15:23:12 CEST 2006
Who Knows wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 May 2006, Michael Best wrote:
>> I guess I cannot please both sides and eventually I'm not pleasing
>> neither :)
> Which supports my earlier suggestion that rpmforge should include a second
> repo for each distro named rpmforge-updates ( or something similiar ) where
> packages that are part of the core are updated leaving it at the choice of
> the user to decide if they want to stay strictly with the core packages or
> stay update with new developements.
Which potentially increases (by orders of magnitude) the complexity of
the repo's interdependancies. As someone who actually maintains a
semi-complex repo, I'd have to say that most (sane) repo maintainers
will respond "Thanks, but no thanks" to requests such as this.
More information about the users