On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against > > > FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > back to a technical solution. > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. > > Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem > as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when > things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like > <some other distro>, should I file a bug against all it's packages > stating the same text all over again? > > It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to > stop this, please. > > [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just > like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists > across the ocean) Hi Axel, While I'm waiting for my ATrpms bugzilla account info to get mailed back, I'll start with a package that, as a scientific software developer, I actually care about: fftw http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=937 As far as I can tell (and I admittedly don't know the intimate details of the ATrpms build bits and the flags it uses) the differences between the FE6 fftw rpms and the AT-for-FC6 rpms are: - the AT version includes the *.la files. Thats it. I don't see any other substantive changes. If you *really* need those *.la files then you can always create an add-on package (as described earlier in this thread) and ship them as some sort of "fftw-la" or similar. But why would Fedora need them...? Or are there more subtle changes that I'm somehow missing? If so, please point them out because, as an fftw user, I'm sincerely interested in hearing why one version may be better than another. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed@xxxxxxx | http://eh3.com/
Attachment:
signature.asc
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
