On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Erik Kjær Pedersen wrote: > Torsdag 04 november 2004 19:40 skrev Dag Wieers: > > Let me add to this that the incompatability of the 3rd party repositories > > has nothing to do with the inability or unwillingness of the 3rd party > > packagers (to the contrary). But the unwillingness (and policy) of > > fedora.us to not allow for compatibility. Apparently it is too hard to > > work with the community. > > That is really interesting. I use > > rpm http://apt.sw.be fedora/2/en/i386 dag > from your repository > rpm http://ayo.freshrpms.net fedora/linux/2/i386 core updates freshrpms > from freshrpms > and > > rpm ftp://apt.us.kde-redhat.org/linux/kde-redhat/apt/ fedora/2 stable > rpm ftp://apt.us.kde-redhat.org/linux/kde-redhat/apt/ fedora/all stable > rpm ftp://apt.us.kde-redhat.org/linux/kde-redhat/apt/ kde-redhat/2 stable > rpm ftp://apt.us.kde-redhat.org/linux/kde-redhat/apt/ kde-redhat/all stable > > from kde-redhat. Unitl recently I had no problems, but the last couple of days > a little bit. I have normally gotten mplayer from freshrpms, but recently > there was an upgrade from your repository. Is that problem free If you find a compatibility problem, you should file a bug. Probably the best place to report it is the freshrpms mailinglist: freshrpms-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx We're all committed to resolving incompatibilities as fast as we can and we're looking at ways to prevent (or detect) incompatibilities before they matter. Having said that, incompatibilities do not occur that often, unless you're using fedora.us/livna.org unfortunately. The reason is explained in some of the mails in this thread. Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]
