On 06/16/2007 06:36 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
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)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?