[Fedora-packaging] Re: Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users

Christopher Stone chris.stone at gmail.com
Mon Nov 20 17:59:48 UTC 2006

On 11/20/06, Rex Dieter <rdieter at math.unl.edu> wrote:
> Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On 10/18/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> >> I even think it would be more productive to highlight the FC or
> >> FE packages that atrpms is providing overrides for, and start a
> >> discussion around why these packages exist, and if there exists the
> >> possibility to merge the changes into the FC or FE package and retire
> >> the atrpms packages. I'm sure that Axel would welcome that discussion,
> >> as less packages means less work for him. :)
> >
> > I have filed over one-hundred bugs a month ago, and while some Fedora
> > users made an effort to try and reduce the conflicts, Axel has not
> > made a single response to a single bug report.
> spot's suggestion was to start a (constructive) dialog regarding this issue.
> IMO, mass-filing formletter-type bugs is certainly no way to go about that,
> and I'm not a bit surprised by Axel's (non)response.

Using bugzilla for discussion is not the way to go?

Wow.  This is mind boggling.  Just how do you expect me to start a
discussion?  Is there a ATrpms mailing list or something?  Even if
there was a mailing list, why would bugzilla be less appropriate?  I
am totally dumbfounded...

More information about the Fedora-packaging mailing list