Experience with ATRPMS repository?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 03:12:39AM -0500, A1tmblwd at netscape.net wrote:
> The other problem I have is that he is providing updates for
> packages provided by Fedora Core with a dependency for a piece of
> code that FC does not require.

Please check the facts before making such accusatory statements.

As a vendor Red Hat ships perl packages that go into the vendors
folders. The debate about perl's path is that (versioned) site folders
should be at the top of the search path. That is not the case with the
default perl packaging, and therefore spacial handling _is_ required.

But freely quoting from your bug report "I don't care about
explanations". Currently you are only contributing FUD. If you still
believe in conspiracy theory, then stop using ATrpms, and setup
atrpms-is-evil.org.
-- 
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://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041207/207f6b96/attachment-0001.sig>