Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor

Christopher Stone chris.stone at
Sun Oct 15 23:51:35 UTC 2006

On 10/15/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at> wrote:
> But that is not about a technical part, e.g. "ATrpms replaces Core
> packages", but the way someone not ever having used ATrpms (as he
> writes) and having picked up something only from hearsay is fudding
> about ATrpms and trying to scare people away from it just because they
> mentioned it (the short version of the FUD is "every system enabling
> ATrpms is doomed, if it still works it's out of pure luck").

Actually, I did once use ATrpms a long time ago, and I myself ended up
with many update problems and issues so I removed the repo and havn't
gone back since.  I think there were maybe one or two packages I still
used (which I installed using rpm instead of yum), but have since
replaced as they came available in Extras.

> The fact is that the repos are approaching each other and that he's
> just throwing mud to any such effords. It's unjustified, unfair to the
> people involved and demotivating.

The reason why I am "mud slinging" is because I have seen literally
dozens of people come in #fedora on IRC trying to figure out why yum
update is no longer working for them and literally 99% of the time it
is due to the fact that they have enabled the ATrpms repo and it has
overridden FC/FE packages.  This is frustrating.  This is VERY
frustrating.  It is so damn frustrating that I end up "mud-slinging"

I am VERY glad that this issue has finally been brought up with the
community, and hopefully we can get it resolved.  I would love to see
ATrpms remove all packages that are already present in FC/FE, and
hopefully even remove packages already found in Livna as well.  If
there are specific technical issues with some packages that are
preventing you from doing this, please let us know.

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list