On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:45:18PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > In the PM I was told you your fetchmail also fixes a bug that > - AFAIK was never reported to bugzilla.redhat.com > - I can't find reported at bugzilla.atrpms.net > - is not even mentioned in the change log of the ATrpms package > > This seems to support Christopher's opinion that "ATrpms is forking Fedora". A forgotten changelog leads to a package forking a distribution? In that case every distribution would consist of several forks of itself :) The change was back in 2003 and was requested by users (I myself don't use fetchmail). After three years I can't name the channel anymore but simple googling shows subsequent user demand for that same feature, for example half a year later on freshrpms' list: http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2004-April/008805.html I agree, if it isn't bugzilla'd it aint a bug. But back in 2003 was even before Fedora was created, and pushing bug reports through RHL9 and friends was a nightmare (or otherwise said close to impossible). But perhaps there is even something in bugzilla.redhat.com, like for example #110668 that addresses one on the issues (e.g. krb support), although that report was two months after I started fixing the package. The bug report does look confusing though. Anyway to cut to the chase I don't think the two fixes in the fetchmail rpm justify a fork, or labeling "broken by ATrpms", and I already wrote in PM that I'd rather see this in Fedora proper now and get rid of this package. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp1BK8w5Rzwv.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
