On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Bernd Radinger wrote: > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 01:36:30 +0100 (CET), Dag Wieers <dag@xxxxxxxxxx> 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) > 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. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.]
