I see your point.
On Sunday, April 15, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen (Kolab Systems) wrote: > On 2012-04-14 21:08, Wan Zuhao wrote: > > Hi Jeroen, > > > > What you've suggested is definitely a good idea. I do agree it's > > important > > to reflect which *version*, in addtion to the name, link, etc. of a > > particular gem that was converted into rpm, as sometimes the latest > > patches > > and bug fixes are not included in the rpm. > > > > > The point is also, sometimes bug fixes (especially security issues) > *are* in fact included in the RPM, but the gem/rpm package version > number would not reflect that. > > Kind regards, > > Jeroen van Meeuwen > > -- > Systems Architect, Kolab Systems AG > > e: vanmeeuwen at kolabsys.com (http://kolabsys.com) > m: +44 74 2516 3817 > w: http://www.kolabsys.com > > pgp: 9342 BF08 > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig > >
_______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
