On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Paul Howarth wrote: > A1tmblwd@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > If it is coincidence up2date, yum and apt are in dire need of improvement > > > because none of these applications can distinguish between packages from > > > an authoritative source and 3rd-party. Once the repositories are enabled > > > these applications will indicate that ATrpms's package is an upgrade for > > > Fedora's. > > > > > I need to correct myself. The rpm naming scheme need improvement so that > > up2date, etc. can perform the differentiation. > > It's not the naming scheme that needs improvement hare, it's the package > management software (up2date, yum etc.). The smart package manager (and maybe > others too?) as plugged here recently by Dag (RPMs at > http://dag.wieers.com/packages/smart/) can be configured not to allow a > repository to overwrite another repo's (or a core) package quite easily. The > discrimination occurs at the repository level, not using package naming. Correct, and the user is in control. Even though the package manager will prevent from breaking the consistency of the package database. It also won't bail out when an unmet dependency is encounter in a transaction set. With smart you can decide what repositories you trust to be upgrading your system by default, which ones cannot override core packages and even which repositories are prefered on a per package basis. So you can use the RPMforge packages, without having to lack nvidia support from livna.org or atrpms. Or you can simply decide that no repository may ever replace core packages at all. It's simple, clean, gives you control if you require it and levels the playing field for repository maintainers without jeopardizing the users. And 0.28 is out and will hit the mirrors soon ! PS Remember that this is only the second public release. If you encounter something that can be improved, share it with the developers ! -- dag wieers, dag@xxxxxxxxxx, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]
