On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:41:10 -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. > Exactly.. Packages from FC were being modified by an update from > fedora.us No package at Fedora.us modifies flac or alsa-lib or causes it to be removed. None of the packages ``updates'' FC. By definition, Fedora.Extras are not permitted to update FC. Again, your theory is void..., FUD as Dag Wieers put it. Fact the facts or prove otherwise. > > > > > 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. > > In my experience and the example above your statement is incorrect (at > least in this case). Removal of the fedora.us repo from my list was the > only action that eliminated the dependency problem. You have not yet understood the problems and side-effects of mixing incompatible repositories. That is something you need to work on before it makes sense to continue this discussion. -- Bernd ``who's getting bored of this list'' R.
