On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:47, Robin Laing wrote:
>
> The real problem is that the 3rd party repositories (freshrpms, DAG,
> etc.) existed long before the fedora project, providing updates for
> RH versions that otherwise would have required a subscription to
> obtain automatically along with additional packages. Then the
> fedora repository used different conventions. If the 3rd party
> sites change conventions, their existing users will at best have to
> download everything touched again and at worst, have broken systems.
I do agree with you to a point.
But with a new release (FC4), why not support the newer version as the
main site.
There are systems around that have been 'yum upgrade'ed from a RH 7.x
base. It's not supported or recommended, but people have their reasons
for doing it.
Any third party site could (should) work with the
distribution method of the release and work as seamlessly as possible.
They should also try to work together as some are so they don't
duplicate packages and/or their packages are mutually compatible.
That implies a single point of control, which can't really happen
and would not be a good thing if it did.
It is a pain to install from one repository only to find that you
cannot update from a different repository or even from the fedora core
site. This is one of those issues about multiple repositories that
has burned me. No site should require the installation of a package
that prevents the upgrading from another site.
Agreed, but what if a package you want needs a core library rebuilt
with different compile options that make it incompatible with
other packages.
In general, I prefer the move to Extras as it makes it easier for a
basic install. Then use yum or preferred method to install the
packages wanted.
As long as nothing needs conflicting options and the contents you
want have no legal questions in any location...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com