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

Re: Fedora Extras is extra



On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 02:21:18 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers <dag wieers com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > 'flac' and 'alsa-lib' are from FC, not Fedora.us.
> > >
> > > flac and alsa-lib are from FC _only_ starting from FC2 ! Before it was not
> > > and other repositories provided it. freshrpms was providing alsa-lib as
> > > far as back in RH7.3 IIRC.
> >
> > what kind of upgrade did jeff vian try?
> 
> I have no clue. Maybe there was a temporary conflict when the repository
> was opened for public. I remember reports of libflac problems, but I think
> they cleared up a few hours after. Only Jeff can tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > > That is a side-effect of repository-mixing. Some of the other
> > > > repositories do upgrade or modify 'alsa-lib' and 'flac', Fedora.us
> > > > doesn't.
> > >
> > > *FUD alert*
> > >
> > > Fedora Core upgraded our packages in both cases. And we stopped providing
> > > them. No modification, no upgrading of core packages. Nothing whatsover,
> > > please verify your facts.
> >
> > 'we' is who?!
> 
> RPMforge = FreshRPMS + Dag + Dries and (in the near future) PlanetCCRMA.
> (We hope to have some more repositories join, but it won't scale if
> everyone and his cat joins)

well, jeff vian included atrpms:

| 3. process of elimination identified the problem repo.
| I removed repos, one at a time, and tried the update with
| each removal, then re-added thttp://www.wellsfargo.com/hat
| repo and removed the next.
| dag, newrpms, freshrpms, atrpms, then last fedora.us. 
                                             ^^^^^^
  ----> there

so, be so kind and don't attack me. thank you!

> > http://atrpms.net/dist/fc3/alsa-lib/
> > http://atrpms.net/dist/fc3/flac/
> > http://apt.atrpms.net/fedora/3/en/i386/RPMS.at-stable/
> 
> I'm sure Axel has good reason to. RPMforge's policy however is not to
> replace non-leaf packages. (like libraries and system packages)
> 
> You're probably confused by now, but compatibility between repositories
> does not mean we have the same policies about replacing packages. RPMforge
> has a common policy about this and other topics.

is this documented somewhere?

-- 
Bernd


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