Log from todays meeting
Manuel Wolfshant
wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Sat Jun 16 18:00:02 UTC 2007
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)
More information about the epel-devel-list
mailing list