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

[Ed Hill]

On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net>
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:
> > > 
> > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028
> > > 
> > > 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 bugzilla.atrpms.net 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
> bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump.
> 
> 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?
> 
> It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to
> stop this, please.
> 
> [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just
>     like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists
> across the ocean)


Hi Axel,

While I'm waiting for my ATrpms bugzilla account info to get mailed
back, I'll start with a package that, as a scientific software
developer, I actually care about: fftw

  http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=937

As far as I can tell (and I admittedly don't know the intimate details
of the ATrpms build bits and the flags it uses) the differences between
the FE6 fftw rpms and the AT-for-FC6 rpms are:

 - the AT version includes the *.la files.

Thats it.  I don't see any other substantive changes.  If you *really*
need those *.la files then you can always create an add-on package (as
described earlier in this thread) and ship them as some sort of
"fftw-la" or similar.  But why would Fedora need them...?

Or are there more subtle changes that I'm somehow missing?  If so,
please point them out because, as an fftw user, I'm sincerely
interested in hearing why one version may be better than another.

Ed

-- 
Edward H. Hill III, PhD  |  ed at eh3.com  |  http://eh3.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061018/dd02653d/attachment.sig>