On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 09:57:07 -0500 (EST), Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > ... So, I stick to my recommendation of a sane set of repositories:
> >
> > Fedora Core + Updates
> > + fedora.us stable [+ testing] [+ unstable]
> > + rpm.livna.org stable [+ testing] [+ unstable]
> > + macromedia.mplug.org
> >
> > And optionally get individual packages from other repositories. But take
> > care that no upgrades to Core or packages from above repositories are
> > performed, because releases at fedora.us and livna.org have not been
> > tested with packages from other repositories.
>
> i'm a little curious why freshrpms is not there.
"not there" == "not in my list above"? Well, the reason is given in the
explanation below that list. Freshrpms.net contains packages which
conflict with packages found at fedora.us/livna.org. Here, "conflict"
means merely, the packages released at fdr/lvn have not been tested with
the packages from freshrpms at all, which makes adding freshrpms an
unsupported combination ("unsupported" in a way that you're on your own
when you run into unresolvable dependencies or other problems and that
bug reports at bugzilla.fedora.us or bugzilla.livna.org may not receive
the proper attention). Some freshrpms packages also upgrade packages
from Fedora Core, which is something many users don't like.
> matthias has a pretty good rep for packaging.
May be true, but that alone is not enough to justify mixing repositories
in an unsupported combination. Also, I prefer open community projects over
closed repositories maintained by an individual who may not be able to
deal with fixes for security weakness or bugs while on vacation.
--
