On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:31:38PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >>On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> > >>>Christopher Stone wrote: > >>>>ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and > >>>>using this > >>>>repo will only mess up your system. > >>>>ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up > >>>>destroying your > >>>>system. > >>Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE > >>RPMs? If so, why? > > > >Apart from packages that existed at ATrpms to start with there are two > >other cases: > > > >o Historically (e.g. RHL7.3 upwards) there were many bug fixes (like > > the rpm rpms) required and crippled packages needed different build > > options or more (non-existing) BRs to offer functionality needed by > > other packages. > > > >o Packages required for non-Fedora distributions, e.g. RHEL4 and RHEL3. > > > >But modern Fedora has due to a faster pace in development and a richer > >set of packages undone most of the issues, allowing ATrpms to reduce > >the set of packages overlapping with Core. > > > >Still some attempts to cooperate in completely reducing them didn't > >get the feedback they needed, e.g. last year on fedora-devel-list > > > >http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html > > > > David Woodhouse for one, asked for specific examples in bugzilla. Thats > pretty good feedback to get started with. It was rather slated down by other (and louder) redhat.com email addresses. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpVHoINMcWYB.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
