ATrpms Real Issues

[Temlakos]

On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 17:28 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:

> > The most specific problems I ran into concerned yum. Until the big
> > blowup, I was using "yum20," as "yum" had to be removed. Once I had to
> > remove GnuCash, though I was able to re-install it later. The big
> > blowup, that forced me to reformat my machine, involved the removal of
> > some libraries--I forget which package--and at the end of it, my entire
> > X configuration was hosed and I *could not* operate at runlevel 5.
> 
> Sound like the pango w/o matching glib2 issue in at-testing (pango was
> in at-testing, glib2 in at-bleeding). So only at-testing users were
> affected. Quite the contrary to the anticipated stability level of
> at-bleeding vs at-testing.

That was it. Those names are familiar.

> > So--in an effort to resolve the issue--do you recommend that I enable
> > at-stable (but not any of your other repo's) in addition to dag, dries,
> > freshrpms, and newrpms? AFAYK, is that a good mix? And--is at-good a
> > safe repo to mix in with the above?
> 
> Of course. The ancient compatibility bridge was created between
> freshrpms, dag, newrpms and ATrpms, then kde-redhat, PlanetCCRMA,
> NyQuist, Dries etc. joined. All these repos are more or less committed
> to keeping up compatibility. They also have a common bugzilla at
> bugzilla.atrpms.net (check the components), where you can both report
> bugs for a specific repo, or bugs that affect inter-repo
> compatibility.
> 
> My recommendation is to use all of these repo, but not
> testing/bleeding/unstable that some of the repos are offering (like
> ATrpms and kde-redhat). Unless you want to get into the loop of testers
> and/or developers (you are more than welcome to do so!).
> -- 

OK, I just enabled at-stable. And immediately it wants to remove
libpostproc (the video processing library for mplayer) and rpmlibs, in
order to upgrade mplayer (and family) and apt, respectively. What's
going on here?

-- 
Temlakos <temlakos at gmail.com>