yum 2.1.13 in updates-testing

[Phil Schaffner]

On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 23:45 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> > Deliberately disabled 3rd party repos to test new yum and new Extras
> > repo.  Seems yum should ideally notice the conflict in apt versions
> > earlier in the process, before asking the user to confirm the upgrade
> > (or should I say downgrade?). 
> 
> It's just a bug - I'll look into it.

Yep - just trying to help.

> >  I get the same failure with ATrpms,
> > FreshRPMS, Dag, NR, NewRPMS, locally-built and Macromedia (my usual
> > [excessive?] set of 3rd party repos) added to the mix.  Only way to
> > avoid the conflict/error seems to be to remove Extras - in which case,
> > result is "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion".
> 
> 
> 
> > Looks like Extras does not play nicely with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, ... any
> > more than Fedora.US did - or vice versa.  Perhaps the situation will
> > improve now that Extras is on the Red Hat server.  Otherwise, will just
> > stick with the "compatible" set of repos plus home-built where required.
> 
> 1. extras isn't built on the red hat server

But it is now available at
baseurl=http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/$releasever/$basearch/

> 2. why do feel the need to attribute to malice that which is simply a
> bug?
> 
> Do you really think I care enough about other repositories to go out my
> way to hurt them by not making yum catch this?
> 
> cmon. let's be reasonable here. there's no need for drama.

Did not intend to imply malice, nor to be dramatic or unreasonable.  Was
just commenting that it has historically been inadvisable to mix
Fedora.US/Livna with FreshRPMS and friends repos (not that they always
play seamlessly together either).  Was hoping the situation would
improve with Extras.

Sorry to have inadvertently caused offense - just trying to help out by
testing/reporting as you requested.  Believe me, your work on yum and
attention to the various mailing lists (and that of ALL the repo
maintainers) is very much appreciated and the last thing I would want to
do is to be intentionally offensive.  E-mail is not the clearest
communications channel and it seems very easy to misinterpret.

Best regards,
Phil