Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
nobody need them in 2.3.3? So my question is, do those binaries act
different depending on how they were called? If that's the case then the
rpms should also ship with the hardlinked files.
I sure hope those hardlinks
On Wed, 24 May 2006, Simon Matter wrote:
> nobody need them in 2.3.3? So my question is, do those binaries act
> different depending on how they were called? If that's the case then the
> rpms should also ship with the hardlinked files.
I sure hope those hardlinks are just there to keep people hap
On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 11:40 +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
> While trying to build updated rpms of 2.3.4 I found the lmtpproxyd is now
> created as a hardlink to lmtpd. The same applies to pop3proxyd which is
> linked to pop3d. In the past the rpm shipped without the hardlinked
> pop3proxyd because it
> On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 11:40 +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
>> While trying to build updated rpms of 2.3.4 I found the lmtpproxyd is
>> now
>> created as a hardlink to lmtpd. The same applies to pop3proxyd which is
>> linked to pop3d. In the past the rpm shipped without the hardlinked
>> pop3proxyd be
