RPMS.at-good and RPMS.at-stable

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 08:18:27AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 11:11:49AM +0100, eric tanguy wrote:
> > > > eric tanguy wrote:
> > > >> What's the difference between these 2 repo ?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, misread the question last time.
> > > >
> > > > The difference is explained at the bottom of http://atrpms.net/
> > > >
> > > > Paul.
> > > So if i understand well all packages from at-stable are included in
> > > at-good (maybe with newer version) ?
> >
> > Yes, less stable repos contain all of their more stable counterparts:
> >
> > good contains stable
> > testing contains good and stable
> > bleeding contains testing, good and stable
> 
> so this means you can't have more than one version of the same piece
> of software?  a stable version, *and* a bleeding edge version?  or am
> i misreading that?

No, you can, for example a package with stable, testing and bleeding
versions:

stable:   foo-1.2.3-4
testing:  foo-1.2.4-5 (and foo-1.2.3-4)
bleeding: foo-2.0.0-7 (and foo-1.2.4-5, foo-1.2.3-4)

So the less stable repos contain the rpm-older more stable packages,
too.

The main reason for this setup is to have the repos self-contained,
e.g. bleeding has all dependencies it needs (some of which will be in
stable or testing), you don't have to combine with the stable or
testing repos. That was often a user error.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041130/a9823cfb/attachment-0001.sig>