On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Bernd Radinger wrote: > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:31:37 -0600, Jeff Vian <jvian10@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 2. It tried to remove libaasound.so.2 and libFLAC.so.4 plus one other I > > don't remember. All of which were required for one or more packages > > already installed > > '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. Reality is more complex than just 'extra repositories should not replace core packages'. What if Core packages suddenly replace extra packages that have been provided by repositories for years ? It has happened before and will happen again, and sure Fedora Extras can make sure that their packages will not break as the same people will be ultimately in control. If there's no communication, 3rd party repositories will effectively be excluded. > > 3. process of elimination identified the problem repo. > > I removed repos, one at a time, and tried the update with each removal, > > then re-added thttp://www.wellsfargo.com/hat repo and removed the next. > > dag, newrpms, freshrpms, atrpms, then last fedora.us. > > 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. I also have to correct you about the pain, there was _no_ pain involved in upgrading these cases. I wish you would have tried it instead of talking about it. -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.]
