On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 03:53:46AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Michael A. Peters wrote: > > > I will say that I specifically do not like the fact that some of the popular > > repositories out there offer packages that REPLACE Fedora Core packages in the > > same repository as their add on packages - they really should separate those > > out to a different repository so that users like me who want to think long and > > hard before replacing a core package won't have to worry about that. Fedora > > Extras does not replace Core packages, it is safe to use. When it is available > > ;) > > Ok, this has come up several times and I should make a FAQ out of it. Why > do people assume that the repository maintainer should be appointed of the > burden of managing 2 or more repositories to just fullfil the way users > want to use a repository ? Or let me rephrase the problem, why do some people insist that replacing packages is bad? The replacements are obviously done for some reason, and not for reducing stability and security. You can have far more severe issues by poorly written daemons and external kernel modules that are technically packaged in separate packages. And for a reality check, when was there an issue with a replaced package? In fact I was glad to see when an ssh exploit was disclosed some time ago (a year+?) that several repos (dag, freshrpms and others I forget) had a fast fix closing that hole on my system. To answer the question myself, the reasons there is a propaganda against repos offering vendor replacements can be found in the intentions of the people loudly proclaiming it's so dangerous to do so. It is just an arbitrary distinction mark from the repo they favour ... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpaEOm6KryWe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
