mock build fails

[seth vidal]

On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 23:57 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 17:34 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > FE doesn't have any control over what they do. RH has the freedom to
> > > apply whatever development policy they prefer, no matter what users
> > > think about it or how harmful it might be to RH.
> > > 
> > > > All it means is: "This bug is fixed and will be released eventually"
> > > The same way yum now supports "--download-only" and the same way yelp
> > > meanwhile supports reading man pages and info files?
> > > 
> > 
> > what are you talking about?
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109002#c1

right - it's closed - it is an upstream issue - not for that bugzilla.


> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=133052#c2


it is a duplicate of something upstream.

How am I wrong in either of those cases?


> Then I'll tell you:
> 
> You are shipping a broken package at full conciousness about its
> brokenness and refuse to withdraw or fix this package. Conversely, you
> continue to tell users where to grab the sources and to rebuild the
> package themselves.
> 

umm. I tell users how to make mock work on their systems. If they asked
me how to make lighttpd or dhcpd work I'd tell them to turn off selinux,
too.


> > It's not helpful nor conducive to a productive environment.
> YOU are this package's developer and maintainer.

So it's okay for you to call a developer and maintainer a jerk? It's
appropriate and helpful? You really take the cake.

-sv