Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor
chris.stone at gmail.com
Mon Oct 16 09:54:55 UTC 2006
On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at atrpms.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:37:04AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On 10/16/06, Hans de Goede <j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl> wrote:
> > >Chris, Axel,
> > >
> > >Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request
> > >that you fight this out by private mail instead?
> > >
> > >Time to end this flamefest.
> > I am trying my best to be constructive here Hans.
> > I very much want to end the flamebait parts of this thread, but it
> > takes two to make that happen. I sincerly hope we can concentrate on
> > the real issues. But what I consider a real issue seems to be
> > different than what Axel considers to be a real issue.
> You started a completely unmotivated raging crusade against my
> packaging work, and now try to hide behind "constructivism"?
> This thread is about your bad behaviour/fudding, not any existing or
> non-existing technical issues. Don't try to divert from that, please.
Hardly completely unmotivated. The fact that I have spent many hours
of my life helping other people solve problems only to find out it was
caused by ATrpms has caused me to recommend nobody use your
repository. And believe me, I am not the only one.
The standard response in #fedora once someone says they use ATrpms is
to ask them to remove the ATrpms repository. This is standard among
everyone in the channel, not just me.
My FUDing is *nothing* compared to the damage your repository has done
by forking Fedora and essentially creating your own distribution. If
this thread is about FUDing, it should have ended LONG ago.
We are *trying* to get this thread off the FUD issue and onto more
important issues which have to deal with potential bugs in packages.
But you seem to think FUDing is a far more important issue to discuss.
More information about the Fedora-maintainers