> > 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/ > > Wasn't the same "la" file that is subject for vulnerability? There is a reason why Fedora Core does not use it. Maybe someone needs to rebuild package without it. Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org -- 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
