[ATrpms-users] Bug in atrpms version of bash-completion

[Jeffrey J. Kosowsky]

Axel Thimm wrote at about 07:56:53 +0200 on Thursday, December 27, 2007:
 > On Wed, Dec 26, 2007 at 09:50:13AM -0500, Jeffrey J. Kosowsky wrote:
 > > Axel Thimm wrote at about 11:38:57 +0200 on Wednesday, December 26, 2007:
 > >  > I didn't create this package this way, most probably it was part of
 > >  > ATrpms before it appeared in any Fedora repos (first package in ATrpms
 > >  > appeared 3 years ago, e.g. at F(8-2*3) ~= FC2 time, where there wasn't
 > >  > even a Fedora Extras).
 > >  > -- 
 > > 
 > > So is there any need to continue it as a separate ATRpms package if it
 > > just simply duplicates Fedora functionality? Seems like it then just
 > > adds work, storage requirements, and potential for additional bugs and
 > > confusion without any real benefits.
 > 
 > One would have to compare with what the Fedora maintainer is doing to
 > cast such a decision, but other than in Fedora I'm quite extensively
 > using it on RHEL. So even if the Fedora branch is turned off the
 > package will continue to be maintained.
 > -- 
 > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
 > 

My personal vote would be to turn it off for branches where a Fedora
equivalent exists unless there are obvious benefits to having a
replacement copy since otherwise it gets drawn in by anyone having
atrpms turned on unless they have installed the Fedora previously and
turned on repository protection. Or at least use some rpm magic so
that it doesn't automatically override an alternative Fedora version
on new installs.

 > [GNUPG:] ERRSIG 401552D4639A99F1 17 2 01 1198735013 9
 > [GNUPG:] NO_PUBKEY 401552D4639A99F1