[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Log from todays meeting



On 06/16/2007 06:36 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
Dag Wieers wrote:
So, we finally found an excuse for no colaboration. At least that means I wil have more time for not trying.

Just curious, do atrpms, RPMForge, Centos Extras and KBS conflict?
For what it's worth, here is the situation of an admin who uses those 4 repos for a couple of years on around 200 of RH 7.x, C3, C4 machines (plus a dozen fedora>=FC1 (yes, I do have functional RH 7.2 and FC1 in production)). All of those systems are in an enterprise environment (as opposed to home/playground use), but most of the desktops have mp3/mplayer/pdf viewer/other goodies which make user life easier installed - never ever had any major issues with packages from rpmforge, centos extras and kbs. they have always played excellent together. As far as I remember I had maybe 2 or 3 conflicts during the last 5 years. Maybe the fact that I do not blindly install packages helps, but I am more then satisfied with what dag/thias/dries/karan have supplied. I will never be able to express my gratitude for them but I hope that somehow somewhere they know about it. - I've also used atrpms a couple of times and it also played nice. Centos recommends being cautious when using it and since it ships newer versions of Base stuff I think it is normal to be cautious in this case. But I am grateful that Axel saved my time suppling openswan and acl enabled kernels, newer versions of lm-sensors (for chipsets not supported by the standard kernel stack) or wifi support for my laptop which runs Centos 3 (and cannot run anything newer due to the EDA tools which are not supported on a newer OS)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]