[users] php-mcrypt (from php-extras) mcrypt.ini file is incorrect

Todd Lyons tlyons at ivenue.com
Tue May 21 17:54:21 CEST 2013


Ok, sorry, that part was not clear to me.  My apologies of that was
condescending.

...Todd

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Leon Fauster
<leonfauster at googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 20.05.2013 um 20:53 schrieb Todd Lyons <tlyons at ivenue.com>:
>> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Leon Fauster
>> <leonfauster at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 20.05.2013 um 11:58 schrieb Richard Lloyd <rklloyd at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> It's not clear to me why Repoforge has exactly the same RPM version as Fedora
>>>> EPEL either - is it normal policy to allow such redundancy?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Repoforge has nothing to do with EPEL - therefore such "incompatibilities" can exist. Repoforge
>>> is considered as 3rd party repository. It is best practice to not mix 3rd party repos.
>>
>> He's not saying that RepoForge is the same as EPEL.  He's saying that
>> the RepoForge mcrypt package puts the wrong configuration setting in
>> the mcrypt.ini file, whereas the EPEL version puts the correct
>> configuration setting.  He's requesting that RepoForge mcrypt php
>> package be fixed to have the correct module name in the mcrypt.ini
>> file so that php can actually find the correct shared object when it
>> looks for it.
>
>
>
> Hello Todd,
>
> sure and valid - i did not want to smother Richard's request. My reply just
> addresses the last phrase of Richards's request (see above) - thats all :-)
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> LF
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.repoforge.org
> http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users



-- 
The total budget at all receivers for solving senders' problems is $0.
 If you want them to accept your mail and manage it the way you want,
send it the way the spec says to. --John Levine


More information about the users mailing list