Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457035 Nathaniel McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #7 from Nathaniel McCallum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-10-18 23:35:09 EDT --- Hi, I'm one of the authors of libproxy. I'd like to suggest that my preferred method of packaging libproxy is *not* to create separate binary packages for each plugin. I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom. However, libproxy is designed to always do the best with what is given. If a certain dependency is not met for a plugin, the plugin will simply fail to load. It will be far more confusing for the user to have all these plugin packages, then for libproxy simply to work for them. What outstanding issues remain for libproxy to be in Fedora? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
