What would happen if you turned on MD5 checking of the RPMs? Jay Scherrer On Thursday 09 December 2004 02:07 am, fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 03:57:06 -0500 > From: A1tmblwd@xxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Same named packages, different dependencies > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx (For users of Fedora Core releases) > Message-ID: <316ED7CB.08FDAD59.005FFA64@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 > > Brian Richardson <brian@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >A1tmblwd@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >[ snip ] > > > >>perl-XML-Parser from Dag > >>======================== > >> > > > >Dag, at least, points out that his packages may/will depend on > > other packages _in his repository_. This is the case for all 3rd > > party vendors He is also nice enough to point out when a > > particular package is maintained by another repository. Simply > > put, the RPMs provided by the Fedora Project are considered > > authoritative for a particular package. Any add-ons will of > > course be provided by 3rd-party vendors. The coincidence of names > > is simply that. > > 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.
