On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 08:12 +0100, Bernd Radinger wrote:
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:41:10 -0600, Jeff Vian
<jvian10(a)charter.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > 2. It tried to remove libaasound.so.2 and libFLAC.so.4 plus one other I
> > > don't remember. All of which were required for one or more packages
> > > already installed
> >
> > 'flac' and 'alsa-lib' are from FC, not Fedora.us.
> Exactly.. Packages from FC were being modified by an update from
> fedora.us
No package at Fedora.us modifies flac or alsa-lib or causes it to be
removed. None of the packages ``updates'' FC. By definition,
Fedora.Extras are not permitted to update FC. Again, your theory is
void..., FUD as Dag Wieers put it. Fact the facts or prove otherwise.
Dag did not call it FUD, That was Michael.
> >
> > > 3. process of elimination identified the problem repo.
> > > I removed repos, one at a time, and tried the update with each removal,
> > > then re-added
thttp://www.wellsfargo.com/hat repo and removed the next.
> > > dag, newrpms, freshrpms, atrpms, then last fedora.us.
> >
> > That is a side-effect of repository-mixing. Some of the other
> > repositories do upgrade or modify 'alsa-lib' and 'flac',
Fedora.us
> > doesn't.
>
> In my experience and the example above your statement is incorrect (at
> least in this case). Removal of the fedora.us repo from my list was the
> only action that eliminated the dependency problem.
You have not yet understood the problems and side-effects of mixing
incompatible repositories. That is something you need to work on
before it makes sense to continue this discussion.
I understand it exactly, and my experience provided a stark example of
that. That is why Fedora.us and
livna.org are not in my list any more.
I will use them for selected packages not available elsewhere, but not
standard.
--
Bernd ``who's getting bored of this list'' R.