On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 08:12 +0100, Bernd Radinger wrote: > 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. > Dag did not call it FUD, That was Michael. > > > > > > > 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. > I understand it exactly, and my experience provided a stark example of that. That is why Fedora.us and livna.org are not in my list any more. I will use them for selected packages not available elsewhere, but not standard. > -- > Bernd ``who's getting bored of this list'' R. >
