example of how this is not correct: Apache-based Server Preparations for Linux - CA Single Sign-On - 12.52 SP1 - CA Technologies Documentation
currently lists the following:
- This is a Library, not an RPM. your list is supposedly RPMs and you would have to give providing RPMs even if you move to libraries
- this is invalid as the version number is replaced by "x.x-x"
- invalid RPM format. looks like a failed attempt to explain the library above
- invalid format, no version informaiton
i hope i dont have to go on and call them all out individually to get them corrected, but this is not what i would expect from a vendor wanting to win the market. if you cannot give us the correct requirements, how can we be sure you wont play games if there is a problem and claim we did not have the right requirements?
i know there are open tickets on this. i also know there is zero traction on them
tech pubs, when will you fix these?