On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 16:25 +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Luk Claes wrote: > > Thomas Goirand wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I'm sorry that it took us so much time to make a working yum package, > >> but we were quite overloaded with our work, taking over all the > >> customers of another web hosting company (taking all our time doing > >> support). Anyway, I could today take the time to upload a working > >> version of yum. Here it is: > >> > >> ftp://ftp.gplhost.com/debian/dists/lenny/main/source/yum_3.2.21-1~gplhost1.dsc > >> > >> I guess you could notice that this is a newer upstream version. Please > >> let me know if you think this would be an acceptable replacement to be > >> sent in lenny proposed updates. At least, I'd be happy if somebody could > >> NMU it to SID or experimental, so there's at least something working > >> available in the archive. > > > > I'm afraid it's too invasive to be included, though I would propose to > > upload it to backports.org. > > > > Cheers > > > > Luk > > Then can the current broken version of yum be removed of Stable? It > makes absolutely no sense to keep a software that doesn't work in the > distribution. I call bollocks here. I am using the version of yum in stable right now to yield perfectly working virtual machine filesystems. How is it "broken" when it is working as expected on production servers? William
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part