On 11/20/06, Rex Dieter rdieter@math.unl.edu wrote:
Christopher Stone wrote:
On 10/18/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway tcallawa@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...