FC5 and Yum Plugins

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 10:33:41PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 06:18:09AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>>Getting bug reports based on packages being replaced isnt exactly a non 
> >>>>issue.
> >>>Can you please point me to these bugs?
> >>I dont have any handy now but ask anyone who hangs out in #fedora for 
> >>more than a week for the horror stories.

> >Objection, your honor, hear-say.

> Not really. One of the people who hang around in #fedora is me.

So you should be able to mention a couple real life
issues/bugzillas. If it ain't in bugzilla, it ain't a bug, right?

No, seriously. I guess you are a victim of this FUD just like many
other people, too. There really isn't any correlation between a
package being replaced/updated and having more bugs for this packages.

On the contrary I would even assert, that for ATrpms the contrary is
true: packages being replaced have a higher maturity, as they have
either been taken out of ATrpms into FC, or ATrpms has enhanced the
build with more BuildRequires/configure options. Packages required at
a newer version are usually checked against Rawhide.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20051231/1241572c/attachment.sig>