[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Michael's FUD (Was: Fragen zu Synaptic)



Michael Schwendt wrote:

> First of all, I believe that "a bit of German" is not sufficient to
> understand the thread on fedora-list-de correctly. "A bit of German" is
> rather vague, but if it means that you skip some words or don't know their
> exact meaning in special context, that can result in severe
> misunderstandings.

Understanding a text written in a foreign language is simpler than
writing an own one in this language...

> I feel honoured that you don't mention my lastname in your message at all
> and crosspost the message to a list which I'm not subscribed to and
> another list where there are lots of other Michaels and where hardly
> anyone has read the thread on the German list (which is a month old by
> now, btw).

What does the missing lastname mean?
If somebody is interested in this thread he/she can have a look at the
web archive of fedora-de-list redhat com 

>>the more people helping out, the better. What I do mind is that he has to 
>>trash other projects (3rd party repos) in doing so.

> Where exactly do I "trash other projects"?

E.g. you should read again what you have written in
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-de-list/2004-May/msg00038.html

> Am I the bad guy already because--like some other users--I do recommend
> fedora.us and rpm.livna.org only? I don't use any of the 3rd party
> repositories, so I cannot recommend them. Mixing 3rd party repositories
> with fedora.us/rpm.livna.org results in problems, as can be read in the
> average message board where users seek for help with broken dependencies
> or non-working multimedia packages.

If you do not use 3rd party repositories, you should not judge them as bad.

>>When Michael says my RPM collection is a work of only one person, he is 
>>wrong.
> 
> 
>>What Michael means is that 1 person is doing the actual packaging/signing. 
> 
> 
> Which is what I've written. A single individual packaging hundreds of
> packages and releasing new packages (upgrades of packages in Fedora Core
> even!) without an open QA/Testing process.

*You* do not have to use a repository if it replaces or upgrades
packages from Fedora Core.

>>  + Michael likes to stress that we cannot possibly have quality packages 
>>    because we have that many packages compared to fedora.us.

> Almost true. Except that if ripped out of context, you put rather strongly
> worded words into my mouth.  And you neglect the possibility that packages
> are improved after release (which I do point out), based on feedback by
> users who run into problems and who take the time to submit bug reports.

Read the second and third paragraph in your mail which I have mentioned
above.
> 
> In one message board (don't remember its name of the top of my head),
> someone described the difference between the release-cycle of fedora.us
> and 3rd party repositories like this:
> 
>   fedora.us : new package -> fix, fix, fix, fix -> release
>   3rd party : new package -> release -> fix -> release -> fix -> release -> ...
>
> Which seems to hit the nail on the head. Though, nowhere do I claim that
> this is true for every package. 

Not everybody wants to use packages which only have double checked bytes...

>>I would like to ask Michael and others to talk about fedora.us's merits
>>without FUDing other projects.
> 
> 
> I do not "FUD other projects".

Really? Read your mail I mentioned above, it only is an example.


Kind Regards,
	Stefan



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]