Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor

Axel Thimm Axel.Thimm at
Mon Oct 16 08:22:58 UTC 2006

On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 05:13:14PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> Do you think I am spreading lies here?

Let me just collate some quotes of you in the last 24h:

Your buzilla comment:
a) I do not use ATrpms so I have never had any problems myself.

A comment in a previous mail
b) Actually, I did once use ATrpms a long time ago,

A comment in this mail
c) Let me describe my latest issue with ATrpms which I had to deal
   with not more than a few weeks ago

A couple more replies and you will be admitting to be a regular ATrpms
user? :)

Anyway since you bring it up, yes, I thing some of these sentences
contradict, so not all of them can be true, right?

Now on to the next piece of FUD. I think you're now despeately trying
to invent issues. You mention nx. nx entered ATrpms when extras was
rejecting it. It was carefully packaged *in cooperation* with the
person that did the fedoranews article and later managed to get it
into extras. At all times compatibility and upgradablity were ensured,
and any improvement made on ATrpms' side were communicated back to the
current package maintainer in extras. I think you really picked a bad
example, invent something else.

> I work closely with an upstream developer on several of the packages I
> maintain for Fedora.  Upstream made a build farm for their packages
> which recently was breaking with Fedora.  They asked me to fix the
> problem and it was due to the fact that they were using apt-get and
> ATrpms.
> IIRC, I believe it was the "nx" package that was causing problems for
> them, I'm not sure how nx was getting installed, perhaps as some
> dependency for another package.  But to make a long story short,
> disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their
> problem.  So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still*
> have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo.

Axel.Thimm at
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list