Am 08.08.2013 23:41, schrieb David: > On 8/8/2013 5:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> who cares in context of the official release? > >> these are *completly* different binaries with completly different >> shared libraries and a different compiler, they have *nothing* >> common with distribution packages > > The Linux Firefox 23 that was released by Mozilla on Tuesday works > just fine with the official Firefox extension that come from Mozilla. > *If* the is a problem with the rpm that Fedora provides/// Sounds like > a fedora problem to me.
*nobody* said there is a problem *because* nobody knows before testing if you think "if it compiles it works" is they way to go you never where responsilbe for any IT exepct your private ones - the packager for a distribution is in doubt responsible for the userbase and a untested, broken update levaes a bad taste in the mouth of users which rely that auto-updates are working and not only untested crap > I have already gotten a perfectly good explanation. That the release > is still in update-testing. While other distro have already released > it to the public. I have to much respect to post names but there are > three well known names that I currently have installed that do one of the three i guess is Ubuntu, a piece of crap in my opinion but hey, if it is your favor why not using it?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- users mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
