On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 10:33:41PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 06:18:09AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >>>>Getting bug reports based on packages being replaced isnt exactly a non > >>>>issue. > >>>Can you please point me to these bugs? > >>I dont have any handy now but ask anyone who hangs out in #fedora for > >>more than a week for the horror stories. > >Objection, your honor, hear-say. > Not really. One of the people who hang around in #fedora is me. So you should be able to mention a couple real life issues/bugzillas. If it ain't in bugzilla, it ain't a bug, right? No, seriously. I guess you are a victim of this FUD just like many other people, too. There really isn't any correlation between a package being replaced/updated and having more bugs for this packages. On the contrary I would even assert, that for ATrpms the contrary is true: packages being replaced have a higher maturity, as they have either been taken out of ATrpms into FC, or ATrpms has enhanced the build with more BuildRequires/configure options. Packages required at a newer version are usually checked against Rawhide. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpM9mmmmLjd6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
