On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 02:40:46AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 11:01:21PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 01:25:16AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > > >It depends on what you define as official. > > > > > > I said "official repository". Do you have any doubt in your mind at all > > > on what that means? > > > > Well, with a trimmed quote it is never as black and white, is it? You > > said: > > > > > # rpm -e ipw3945-ucode. This package is not in the official > > > repository. The official package is called ip3945-firmware. Install > > > that instead. > > > > I was more referring to the "official package". Anyway it's moot as > > you wrote later on that the "official repository" carries no package > > at all, neither an "official package" or otherwise. > > > > I guess I just didn't like being compared as opposite to something > > that you several times label as official in the same paragraph. You > > won't keep hard feeling towards me because of that? ;) > > I clearly said official repository for Fedora. And you said that "the official package is called ip3945-firmware". > I don't think you or anyone else could have been confused by that > and hence no clarifications were really necessary. As I said (and you trimmed it again): I was more referring to the "official package". > The only reason you wanted to clarify (from my understanding) is because > you didn't liked your package being compared to something that I called > official. The only reason I had to do that is to distinguish between > them. There is no need to read between the lines for that. So there are hard feelings after all. Oh, well, the joys of open source. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpStKlhJTrZN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
