Daouda LO wrote: > Götz Waschk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Am Donnerstag, 17. Juli 2003, 08:05:26 Uhr MET, schrieb David Walser: >> > Actually, userdrake should just drop the explicit >> > requires because RPM will figure it out. It kinda >> > makes sense for libuser1 to provide libuser, and the >> > package currently called libuser (accounting for the >> > confusion) should be renamed to something more >> > descriptive of what it actually contains. Maybe >> > libuser-tools is more appropriate or something. It's >> > the one that really shouldn't provide libuser. >> >> Hi, >> >> I think the only bug is that libuser1 provides libuser. > > My bad. > Anyway, it's fixed in latest release (5mdk).
Nothing was changed regarding this in the newest userdrake or libuser packages.
