Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:31:38PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 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.

It was rather slated down by other (and louder) redhat.com email addresses.
-- 
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-maintainers/attachments/20061016/ffe40d05/attachment.sig>