On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 11:36:30PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: > On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 05:00 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Uh, I wasn't making a comment about you, > > > > Commenting on my work is commenting on me. > > You, on the other hand, just called me "stupid." Therefore, if I > come off as a little snippy, there is a reason for that. No, please don't put words in my mouth, that's your wording. I just said your trigger-happyness doesn't make you look smart. > > > I was saying that when it's impossible for yum to figure out > > > dependency issues (a situation commonly arising from broken > > > repositories, of which there are plenty, especially when mixed and > > > matched), trying to program in some fuzzy logic to acommodate for > > > configuration and/or repository error will result in fuzzy systems. > > > > Yes, nicely worded FUD and still completely unrelated to the issue, > > FUD stands for "fear, uncertainty, and doubt," and I don't see how my > little clarification above is any of these three words. An unrelated clarification that wrongly implies that there is "a configuration and/or repository error" even after you have been told there was none, confusing the reader generating doubt, uncertainity and fear? > > still implying that there is a "configuration and/or repository > > error". There is/was no broken repo/configuration involved in > > this. Period. > > Fine, take a cookie. If you have found a bug in yum/rpm/programmer's > dna/whatever, you by all means deserve recognition. When I find bugs in > software (such as, say, Python), I just report the problem upstream and > then work around the issue in the meantime, but that's probably just me. As already said in this thread this bug is (most probably, I don't have Karsten's boxes) already fixed? The bug has been reported & fixed upstream and in RH's updates since long, but since Karsten reinstalls his boxes from scratch, he falls into the same pit all over again. All he needs is to be told to update yum against RH's released-updates. Or if he still encounters issue to report them here or on duke's bugzilla. > for which I shall add a "powered by ATRpms" signature at the bottom, > since you seem to take great personal pride in your work. Please don't exaggerate the situation. I'm not looking for recognition, I just don't like people running around making false statements w/o having taken a minute to investigate the issue. This helps neither the user, nor the community in general. That's why I called your junmping-on-conclusions trigger-happy. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20050404/62de119b/attachment-0001.bin
