Changing kernel API / Breaking VirtualBox - update criteria violation?
jspaleta at gmail.com
Thu Dec 8 20:42:24 UTC 2011
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl at thelounge.net> wrote:
> they HAD the manpower to do this rebuilds for so.114 to so.115
> so WTF why they jumping to a outdated version instead so.119?
> doing such nonsense and after that whine about to few manpower
> is a little bit strange - the rebuilds do not take really time
Please... I'm begging you. Can you please stop asking rhetorical
questions concerning the management of a 3rd party repository here.
We legitimately can not give you an authoritative an answer to that
question... and you know this. You KNOW this is not the correct
mailinglist and yet you persist. Enough.
This is not the appropriate place to air your grievances about
rpmfusion packaging decisions and as a group here we can neither
adequately defend current 3rd party repository management
nor is it possible for us as a group to do anything to make your
personally feel better by making any changes. rpmfusion has their own
communication and governance model that is not beholden to the
governance model the the Fedora project employees to arbitrate over
All we can do is encourage you to _engage_ with the management of that
3rd party repository to resolve your grievances. Which we have done
I'm saying this as politely as I can. Move this into the appropriate
rpmfusion development communication channel and out of here.
Continuing to get yourself emotionally worked up about your grievances
here is not going to lead to satisfactory progress for anyone. Not for
you, not for other rpmfusion users, not for the rpmfusion developers,
and not for any else here either.
If you continue to persist in second guessing our collective good
faith attempts at explaining the situation to you, I will not be as
polite in further communication.
Good day to you sir,
More information about the devel