Update patches versus full update RPM.

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 00:46, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> > BUT HE DOESN'T:
> 
> Please don't have a discussion like this.

The way you quote that line it almost makes it seem like I speak in caps
(aka screaming). In the context, it's a small section pointing out
facts.

>  The last person I read making demands on this list was you, and you can
>  be quite obnoxious yourself 

I don't remember demanding anyone some changes, and after failing
inciting other users after those people.

I've complained about license issues (namely the things about qmail) and
lastly about dangerous enticing of the usage of root for tasks it should
never be used on, and even explained in detail how to do it -- for the
article in question -- in a proper way, so it is hardly whining at all.


Compare that to the behavior about questionable advantages for binary
delta patches.

> template directory). Let's please have an on topic discussion about 
> technical issues concerning the possibility of patch upgrading (s)rpms, how 
> we can tackle certain technical issues and how we are going to best make 
> our requests known to the concerned developers.

Those who can participate (ie, actually help with code patches and
design) should discuss that in fedora-devel-list or other appropriate
places (like rpm-list) and not here.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20040112/747bfff8/attachment-0001.sig>