On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 02:21:18 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers <dag(a)wieers.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 'flac' and 'alsa-lib' are from FC, not Fedora.us.
> >
> > flac and alsa-lib are from FC _only_ starting from FC2 ! Before it was not
> > and other repositories provided it. freshrpms was providing alsa-lib as
> > far as back in RH7.3 IIRC.
>
> what kind of upgrade did jeff vian try?
I have no clue. Maybe there was a temporary conflict when the repository
was opened for public. I remember reports of libflac problems, but I think
they cleared up a few hours after. Only Jeff can tell.
> > > 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.
> >
> > *FUD alert*
> >
> > Fedora Core upgraded our packages in both cases. And we stopped providing
> > them. No modification, no upgrading of core packages. Nothing whatsover,
> > please verify your facts.
>
> 'we' is who?!
RPMforge = FreshRPMS + Dag + Dries and (in the near future) PlanetCCRMA.
(We hope to have some more repositories join, but it won't scale if
everyone and his cat joins)
well, jeff vian included atrpms:
| 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.
^^^^^^
----> there
so, be so kind and don't attack me. thank you!
>
http://atrpms.net/dist/fc3/alsa-lib/
>
http://atrpms.net/dist/fc3/flac/
>
http://apt.atrpms.net/fedora/3/en/i386/RPMS.at-stable/
I'm sure Axel has good reason to. RPMforge's policy however is not to
replace non-leaf packages. (like libraries and system packages)
You're probably confused by now, but compatibility between repositories
does not mean we have the same policies about replacing packages. RPMforge
has a common policy about this and other topics.
is this documented somewhere?
--
Bernd