On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:20:11PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/15/06, seth vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:00 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >Axel is not trying to break people's systems and there was too much > >invective in your post. > > I did not mean to imply he is *trying* to break people's systems. I > am only stating what I know through experience, and this is that > people who have used ATrpms (including myself) have had problems with > yum. It is pretty much the standard answer in #fedora to tell someone > to remove ATrpms when diagnosing a problem, and it is a shame that > this is the case. Yes, it's a shame, so why are you doing it? If there were issues try to nail them down and report them instead of continuously fudding people. > So let me rephrase my statement and say that using ATrpms has the > "potential" to break your system. A sudden change of facts. ... > However, call me a cynic, I doubt this is going to happen. Axel, I'd > love for you to prove me wrong on this point. I've proven you wrong in quite a few points already I guess. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpQTc4ESkrWX.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
