Yes, but this is an issue that's caused by the horde2/imp3 naming, so we should just get rid of it.
There's going to have to be a rename anyway, when horde3 and imp4 come out, we might as well make sane and stable names now. If the newly renamed packages have a provides/obsoletes on the old names, I think upgrades will be OK. magic wrote: > I believe this was discussed a few months back, and was decided that the > packages should remain horde2/imp3 for compatability purposes. > > If they change to horde/imp will that not create issues for pre 9.2 > users that already have the horde suite configured & installed? (Not to > mention making things much more confusing.) > > Thanks, > > S > > Guillaume Rousse wrote: > >>I just rewieved the whole horde suite: >>- horde2 >>- imp3 >>- turba >>- chora >> >>It seems old imp 1 or 2 are no longer around, while there is still old >>horde-nag 1. Could we nuke it, and turn horde2 to horde and imp3 to imp ? >> >>BTW, i found the ADVX macros very useful. Why are those macros in >>/usr/share/ADVX, and not integrated among standard rpm macros ? >> >>I also found most private directories are both protected by the in apache >>config file, and by a local .htaccess in the directory. Isn't this a bit >>redundant. >> >>Finally, all those sensible files (apache config file, .htaccess files) are >>owned by apache groupe, with 640 perms, which make rpmlint scream. Time for >>some new rpmlint exception/check ? >> >> > > > >
