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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 20.05.2013 um 20:53 schrieb Todd Lyons <[email protected]>: >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 5:42 AM, Leon Fauster >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Am 20.05.2013 um 11:58 schrieb Richard Lloyd <[email protected]>: >>>> >>>> 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 > [email protected] > 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 _______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.repoforge.org/mailman/listinfo/users
