warning to list

[Ricardo Veguilla]

On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 19:42 -0600, Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 14:46 -0400, Ricardo Veguilla wrote:
> > I can't believe you are making this argument.*You* "forced" yourself
> > when *you* decided to use an unsupported beta.
> 
> For the love of Pete, people, chill a little. You're arguing against
> something that Matías NEVER SAID, damn it.
> 

Never? Did you read his mail? 

Quoting Matias

> By not signing their rpm in rawhide, Red Hat "force" me to take risk
> (fake rpm, ...) for _nothing_. I don't want to take these risks.
>

Its funny because I agree that it will be good if rawhide rpms were
signed, but I was only pointing out that if you choose to use
unsupported beta software for critical tasks, you can't say the provider
forced you to be at risk... it was your choice to use it. 

> Read the posts carefully. Argue intelligently and coherently. Or be
> quiet. Not just Ricardo, either... there were a couple other "you're not
> fit to run Rawhide" posts which were no more intelligent.

Please try to apply this to yourself too, and please don't "put words in
my mouth", I never said Matias (or anyone) wasn't fit to run Rawhide, I
said that if unsigned rpms were an issue for him the he should consider
not using rawhide. 


Regards,
-- 
Ricardo Veguilla <veguilla at hpcf.upr.edu>