On 11/20/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/18/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I even think it would be more productive to highlight the FC or >> FE packages that atrpms is providing overrides for, and start a >> discussion around why these packages exist, and if there exists the >> possibility to merge the changes into the FC or FE package and retire >> the atrpms packages. I'm sure that Axel would welcome that discussion, >> as less packages means less work for him. :) > > I have filed over one-hundred bugs a month ago, and while some Fedora > users made an effort to try and reduce the conflicts, Axel has not > made a single response to a single bug report. spot's suggestion was to start a (constructive) dialog regarding this issue. IMO, mass-filing formletter-type bugs is certainly no way to go about that, and I'm not a bit surprised by Axel's (non)response.
Using bugzilla for discussion is not the way to go? Wow. This is mind boggling. Just how do you expect me to start a discussion? Is there a ATrpms mailing list or something? Even if there was a mailing list, why would bugzilla be less appropriate? I am totally dumbfounded... -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
