Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775])

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Thu Oct 19 01:20:18 UTC 2006

On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 03:03 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > > Just FYI,
> > > 
> > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE
> > > repositories.  The tracker bug is here:
> > > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > Let's hope some good becomes of this.
> > 
> > I hope this is a step in the right direction.  Thank you for getting
> > back to a technical solution.
> Drowning in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports
> against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like
> spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use
>, now it's a dump.

They aren't empty.  They ask for an explanation as to why they override
the distribution they are geared towards.  Arguably, Christopher could
have filed a single bugzilla with a list of all packages that conflict.
However that would tend to get messy as per package responses were

> Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem
> as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when
> things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like
> <some other distro>, should I file a bug against all it's packages
> stating the same text all over again?

Look, if you have a package that overrides one that is already present
in Core or Extras, then either the Core or Extras package is broken or
you have an extra feature turned on, or some other difference.  If there
is no difference, why do you have the package to begin with?  In all
those cases, I think it's worth looking at.  If it gets documented in
your bugzilla and a Core/Extras package is broken we can point back to
that when a Fedora bugzilla is opened to _fix_ the brokenness.  If it's
a feature that we can enable in Extras/Core, then we can also point back
to it.

> It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to
> stop this, please.

If I had done this instead of Christopher, would it be awkward?  Or if
this thread had never taken place, and this was done would it be
awkward?  I'm asking because I see this as a step towards getting ATrpms
and Fedora working more closely together.  If that is truly going to
happen, neither side can hold grudges.


More information about the Fedora-maintainers mailing list