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@xxxxxxxxxxx >>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
