Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor

[Rahul Sundaram]

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
>> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
>>
>>> Christopher Stone wrote:
>>>> ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and using this
>>>> repo will only mess up your system.
>>>> ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up destroying your
>>>> system.  
>> Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE
>> RPMs? If so, why?
> 
> Apart from packages that existed at ATrpms to start with there are two
> other cases:
> 
> o Historically (e.g. RHL7.3 upwards) there were many bug fixes (like
>   the rpm rpms) required and crippled packages needed different build
>   options or more (non-existing) BRs to offer functionality needed by
>   other packages.
> 
> o Packages required for non-Fedora distributions, e.g. RHEL4 and RHEL3.
> 
> But modern Fedora has due to a faster pace in development and a richer
> set of packages undone most of the issues, allowing ATrpms to reduce
> the set of packages overlapping with Core.
> 
> Still some attempts to cooperate in completely reducing them didn't
> get the feedback they needed, e.g. last year on fedora-devel-list
> 
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html
> 

David Woodhouse for one, asked for specific examples in bugzilla. Thats 
pretty good feedback to get started with.

Rahul