On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:43:40AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:23:58AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >> >Indeed any package at ATrpms has potential breakage. But this is true > >> >for any piece of software and package out there. Or did you invent the > >> >bug-free software? > > > >> I am very dissappointed that you think I am inventing problems. Is it > >> really that hard for you to accept the possibility that there may > >> exist a problem with an ATrpms package? > > > >For one I obviously stated the opposite, I never said that ATrpms > >managed to get all bits bug-free. For second you already showed that > >your statements are to be taken with a grain (or ton) of salt. From a > >never-ever ATrpms user you have mutated to an often-used-often-burned, > >later consultant-in-removing-ATrpms-packages and so on. > > And this is constructive how? And how is trying to twist my words to mean the opposite add to being constructive? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpKkSEQntZM8.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
