[Fedora-packaging] Re: Fedora Packaging Member forking Fedora/Causing problems with community and users
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Wed Oct 18 21:21:45 UTC 2006
I'm sorry to the fellow list members - I did stop defending against
Christopher's FUD, but instead of a deescalation and a fade out, I now
see him spreading FUD on websites, irc, several fedora lists, more
bugzilla reports and probably any other means as well. It looks like a
raging personal crusade. But since there are some very false
statements placed by him into archives/bugzillas/google I need to
rectify some of them at least.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 10:03:28AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> As you are all probably intimately aware by now, there has been
> discussions about 3rd party repositories overriding base Fedora
> packages and creating their own distribution which causes very serious
> problems for users and damages the community.
> I FIND IT *VERY* DISTRUBING THAT ONE OF THESE REPOSITORY MAINTAINERS
> IS ON THE FEDORA PACKAGING COMITTEE!
> Here is an example IRC log that was taken just last night illustrating
> the problem:
Indeed! Perhaps you'll be surpised to find me agreeing that it
illustrates the problem excellently!
> 20:40:49 RyeBrye | Trying to get yum to install gtk2-devel
> from the update repo I get 4 dependency errors
> 20:41:10 RyeBrye | the first one is gtk2 itself
> 20:41:17 XulChris | RyeBrye: caused by using atrpms no doubt
> 20:43:42 RyeBrye | I'm relatively new to Linux - but it seems
> that the prevailing opinion is that atrpms = the devil
> 20:44:23 XulChris | RyeBrye: basically yes, we even attempted to
> tell AT this, but he refused to listen and accused of of using "FUD"
> techniques against his
> 20:53:51 * RyeBrye is busy removing a whole lot of crap because
> atrpms installed a gtk2 package - and just about everything he
> installed from atrpms (mythtv)
> depended on it
Now let's see, someone has an issue with gtk. XulChris (Chistopher
Stone?) immediately accuses ATrpms ("no doubt"!). The reporting user
believes that w/o questioning since he got some valuable consulting
from XulChris who seems to have great insights in this matter.
The culmination is the establishment that ATrpms managed to pull in
gtk due to mythtv depending on in. Everybody then goes on in
slantering ATrpms and Axel Thimm for doing such bad things.
Now to the simple two facts reverting the "problem"
a) mythtv is a qt application
b) ATrpms has no gtk packages
The user probably has some random issue and ATrpms is a good
So what is the "problem"? It is
o 0 research
o blind accusation
o in short FUD
It's also self-generating FUD. Tomorrow some of the people in the IRC
will hear of someone with problem in his say bind update. They will
ask him whether he has ATrpms enables and advise him to reinstall from
scratch. The next day the guy doing the last reinstallation will
reenforce someone else that ATrpms is bad and that his power issues on
the monitor are due to having installed ATrpms. I hope it doesn't end
assuming that evils spreading from *.gov and *.mil (and other foreign
equivalents) are due to some PC in there having ATrpms enabled. ...
So Chistopher Stone and people like him are not providing a solution
to an alleged problem, but instead constitute themselfes great part of
the problem. He is building walls where others try to build bridges.
Note: The main theme of the "issues by ATrpms" is the package
replacement policy. The ones that are longer here around or are
ATrpms' users will know that there *are* efforts (and results) to
reduce the overlaps and to provide a repo-side solution. Certainly not
due to Chistopher's FUD, though.
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Fedora-packaging