On Fri, 2003-03-07 at 09:20, Rick Emery wrote: > Quoting Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > So your seriously claiming that you think 'untested' or 'unpatched' > > packages could be included in rh8.1 ?!
> P.S. I think it's great that you compiled the errata into a package; it will > prevent vulnerable beta machines. But installing this beta tests your package, > not Red Hat's. Which is fine, if they include your package in the final release. Which is REALLY funny to me since chabotc was on the "running any Rawhide packages means yer not beta testing" side of previous arguments. Seems a horribly inconsistant point of view to me. To sum up chabotc mental state expressed recently on this list: Don't run rawhide packages, even when redhat developers ask you to test them becuase they hopefully contain a fix...but please run the binary packages I rolled up for you (And didn't bother signing with a GPG key either). chabotc has confused the crap out of me, with mixed messages, like a drunk girl a frat party passed out with her head in my lap. I for one don't think its so great the chabotc has rolled up packages...considering the previous disdain chabotc has shown for running rawhide packages, as part of the beta process. I have to question chabotc's motivations...and I don't see why any of us should explicitly trust chabotc packages...especially unsigned packages. -jef"aim for consistancy, if being clever is just too hard"spaleta
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
