On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 02:54:43PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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. > > It's not necessarily bad, but I can understand that people wish to > avoid them. It's about offering choice the same way as you'd say to > exclude some package from some repository for whatever reason is > acceptable for yourself. > > 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 ... > > Though it shouldn't hold us back to offer that choice anyway, if it > can be done by one of the tools. Agreed, I'm focussing on the propaganda part. Having this support in tools is nice to have (apt already has this feature), but using this as an argument against repos is quite silly. > PS In case you have a RHEL subscription, the need for such a feature > is even higher. Yes, you will get your support voided if you replace packages. RHEL is a completely different game. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp3txs04xcS4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
