fetchmail (was: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor)

[Axel Thimm]

On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:45:18PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote:
> In the PM I was told you your fetchmail also fixes a bug that
> - AFAIK was never reported to bugzilla.redhat.com
> - I can't find reported at bugzilla.atrpms.net
> - is not even mentioned in the change log of the ATrpms package
> 
> This seems to support Christopher's opinion that "ATrpms is forking Fedora".

A forgotten changelog leads to a package forking a distribution? In
that case every distribution would consist of several forks of itself
:)

The change was back in 2003 and was requested by users (I myself don't
use fetchmail). After three years I can't name the channel anymore but
simple googling shows subsequent user demand for that same feature,
for example half a year later on freshrpms' list:

http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2004-April/008805.html

I agree, if it isn't bugzilla'd it aint a bug. But back in 2003
was even before Fedora was created, and pushing bug reports through
RHL9 and friends was a nightmare (or otherwise said close to
impossible).

But perhaps there is even something in bugzilla.redhat.com, like for
example #110668 that addresses one on the issues (e.g. krb support),
although that report was two months after I started fixing the
package. The bug report does look confusing though.

Anyway to cut to the chase I don't think the two fixes in the
fetchmail rpm justify a fork, or labeling "broken by ATrpms", and I
already wrote in PM that I'd rather see this in Fedora proper now and
get rid of this package.
-- 
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/20061016/0c516e3f/attachment.sig>