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

[Luya Tshimbalanga]

> 
> 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/
> 
> 

Wasn't the same "la" file that is subject for vulnerability? There is a
reason why Fedora Core does not use it. Maybe someone needs to rebuild
package without it.

Luya Tshimbalanga
-- 
Fedora Project Contributor
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga
http://www.fedoranews.org