yum horror

[Axel Thimm]

On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 08:55:34PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
> >>Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the 
> >>.at-packages
> >>smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm 
> >>downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
> >>It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are 
> >>broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P  (sorry for that one)
> >
> >Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known
> >to me is yum itself.
> > 
> Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but 
> a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
> 
> file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of 
> atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package 
> apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf

That's not an issue with apt as a package resolver, but with the named
packages themselves (the thread was about bugs in the yum resolver not
allowing it to resolve the right packages out of a set from a repo).

> REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and 
> .at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing 
> everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many 
> conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were 
> many more with many other packages...
> 
> In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like 
> .at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).

No, there is a different policy of packaging. ATrpms prefers to
package apt and its config files in separate packages and this has
been discussed quite often and found to be beneficial to allowing
multiple repository coexistence (the apt package become vendor/repo
neutral and you can have any *-package-config package you like, ATrpms
itself offers two flavours already to prove the mechanism).

> All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get. 
> Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the 
> intention is to break all spoons :P

No, both spoons and soup are perfectly working, just use the apt
package from ATrpms.

I mean I _am_ using half a dozen repos right now including of course
the Fedora Core base and updates repos. And I'm certainly not the only
one ;)
-- 
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/20050101/e715ac30/attachment-0001.sig>