[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor



On 10/15/06, Axel Thimm <Axel Thimm atrpms net> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 04:14:46PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here Axel.

It's not about me, but about what you are trying to do.

> You seem to be completely ignoring the **FACT** that Fedora users
> who use ATrpms end up with messed up systems in which they can no
> longer properly upgrade using yum.

That is what I call FUD. I count a dozen thousand unique daily
visitors on ATrpms' master mirror and if one could get metrics from
the other mirrors there would be quite a huge number. So there are ~
15000 users with broken systems daily? Or are do they all belong to
the category "have been very lucky" as you write in bugzilla?

Do you think I am spreading lies here?  Let me describe my latest
issue with ATrpms which I had to deal with not more than a few weeks
ago:

I work closely with an upstream developer on several of the packages I
maintain for Fedora.  Upstream made a build farm for their packages
which recently was breaking with Fedora.  They asked me to fix the
problem and it was due to the fact that they were using apt-get and
ATrpms.

IIRC, I believe it was the "nx" package that was causing problems for
them, I'm not sure how nx was getting installed, perhaps as some
dependency for another package.  But to make a long story short,
disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their
problem.  So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still*
have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]