[Bug 457035] Review Request: libproxy - A library handling all the details of proxy configuration

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457035


Nathaniel McCallum <bugs at natemccallum.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bugs at natemccallum.com




--- Comment #7 from Nathaniel McCallum <bugs at natemccallum.com>  2008-10-18 23:35:09 EDT ---
Hi, I'm one of the authors of libproxy.  I'd like to suggest that my preferred
method of packaging libproxy is *not* to create separate binary packages for
each plugin.  I know this flies in the face of conventional wisdom.  However,
libproxy is designed to always do the best with what is given.  If a certain
dependency is not met for a plugin, the plugin will simply fail to load.  It
will be far more confusing for the user to have all these plugin packages, then
for libproxy simply to work for them.

What outstanding issues remain for libproxy to be in Fedora?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.