On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:58:56AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:10 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Christopher Stone wrote: > > > But to make a long story short, > > > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > > > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > > > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. > > > > IMO, If you have issues, take it up with Axel and/or an ATrpms mailing > > list, but such commentary has no place in any *fedora* bugzilla (nor on > > this mailing list). And please try to remember, we're trying to bring > > people together here, not divide them. > > Hold on. If someone has hosed up their system using ANY means why is not > appropriate to explain that in bugzilla? We go on screeds about nvidia > or ati drivers in bugzilla pretty commonly. How is what Christopher did > all that different? did you check the bug report? No system was broken and no bug was pointed out to. Christopher raged about ATrpms completely unmotivated. Or better said he raged after the submitter said he condsidered to submit this package to ATrpms. I could now pick a random bug report and start ranting about a random fedora contributior's packaging work, right? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpa7Jb1yzgNo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
