Re: Michael's FUD (Was: Fragen zu Synaptic)
Michael Schwendt wrote:
First of all, I believe that "a bit of German" is not
sufficient to
understand the thread on fedora-list-de correctly. "A bit of German" is
rather vague, but if it means that you skip some words or don't know their
exact meaning in special context, that can result in severe
misunderstandings.
Understanding a text written in a foreign language is simpler than
writing an own one in this language...
I feel honoured that you don't mention my lastname in your
message at all
and crosspost the message to a list which I'm not subscribed to and
another list where there are lots of other Michaels and where hardly
anyone has read the thread on the German list (which is a month old by
now, btw).
What does the missing lastname mean?
If somebody is interested in this thread he/she can have a look at the
web archive of fedora-de-list(a)redhat.com.
>the more people helping out, the better. What I do mind is that he
has to
>trash other projects (3rd party repos) in doing so.
Where exactly do I "trash other projects"?
E.g. you should read again what you have written in
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-de-list/2004-May/msg00038.html
Am I the bad guy already because--like some other users--I do
recommend
fedora.us and rpm.livna.org only? I don't use any of the 3rd party
repositories, so I cannot recommend them. Mixing 3rd party repositories
with fedora.us/rpm.livna.org results in problems, as can be read in the
average message board where users seek for help with broken dependencies
or non-working multimedia packages.
If you do not use 3rd party repositories, you should not judge them as bad.
>When Michael says my RPM collection is a work of only one person,
he is
>wrong.
>What Michael means is that 1 person is doing the actual packaging/signing.
Which is what I've written. A single individual packaging hundreds of
packages and releasing new packages (upgrades of packages in Fedora Core
even!) without an open QA/Testing process.
*You* do not have to use a repository if it replaces or upgrades
packages from Fedora Core.
> + Michael likes to stress that we cannot possibly have quality
packages
> because we have that many packages compared to fedora.us.
Almost true. Except that if ripped out of context, you put rather
strongly
worded words into my mouth. And you neglect the possibility that packages
are improved after release (which I do point out), based on feedback by
users who run into problems and who take the time to submit bug reports.
Read the second and third paragraph in your mail which I have mentioned
above.
In one message board (don't remember its name of the top of my head),
someone described the difference between the release-cycle of fedora.us
and 3rd party repositories like this:
fedora.us : new package -> fix, fix, fix, fix -> release
3rd party : new package -> release -> fix -> release -> fix -> release
-> ...
Which seems to hit the nail on the head. Though, nowhere do I claim that
this is true for every package.
Not everybody wants to use packages which only have double checked bytes...
>I would like to ask Michael and others to talk about
fedora.us's merits
>without FUDing other projects.
I do not "FUD other projects".
Really? Read your mail I mentioned above, it only is an example.
Kind Regards,
Stefan