not really that Fedora will overwrite our RPMs. The
official VirtualGL RPMs use a build number based on the date (such as
20120908), so our RPMs will likely overwrite Fedora's, which use a build
number of 1, 2, etc. Using a higher epoch number with our packages is
certainly easy enough to d
On 09/07/2012 03:34 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
And here comes the bigger question what is keeping all you networking
guys from simply combine all that effort and coming up with one single
network application that everybody can use happily from embedded to
servers to desktop?
There's room to work
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012, Ken Dreyer wrote:
With VirtualGL, if his main concern is that Fedora's RPMs will
overwrite the ones that he sells, could he just bump the Epoch tag in
his copies?
This is exactly what I did with custom rpms for opendnssec that depended
on proprietary PKCS#11 drivers and som
2012/9/6 Andre Robatino :
> As per the Fedora 18 schedule [1], Fedora 18 Alpha Test Compose 6 (TC6)
> is now available for testing. Content information, including changes,
> can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5284#comment:13
> . Please see the following pages for download links
I don't see the reason for someone to install and use two versions of
the same thing and I think that renaming the package other than project
name is a bad idea...
Besides that, if the developer doesn't want that others redistribuite
his program he can always change the license or become co-main
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Gary Gatling wrote:
> If a upstream project somehow objects to someone packaging their software
> should you just give up and tell people that the upstream would prefer you
> download their self created rpms or is it considered acceptable to go ahead
> and package
