On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 17:28 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > The most specific problems I ran into concerned yum. Until the big > > blowup, I was using "yum20," as "yum" had to be removed. Once I had to > > remove GnuCash, though I was able to re-install it later. The big > > blowup, that forced me to reformat my machine, involved the removal of > > some libraries--I forget which package--and at the end of it, my entire > > X configuration was hosed and I *could not* operate at runlevel 5. > > Sound like the pango w/o matching glib2 issue in at-testing (pango was > in at-testing, glib2 in at-bleeding). So only at-testing users were > affected. Quite the contrary to the anticipated stability level of > at-bleeding vs at-testing. That was it. Those names are familiar. > > So--in an effort to resolve the issue--do you recommend that I enable > > at-stable (but not any of your other repo's) in addition to dag, dries, > > freshrpms, and newrpms? AFAYK, is that a good mix? And--is at-good a > > safe repo to mix in with the above? > > Of course. The ancient compatibility bridge was created between > freshrpms, dag, newrpms and ATrpms, then kde-redhat, PlanetCCRMA, > NyQuist, Dries etc. joined. All these repos are more or less committed > to keeping up compatibility. They also have a common bugzilla at > bugzilla.atrpms.net (check the components), where you can both report > bugs for a specific repo, or bugs that affect inter-repo > compatibility. > > My recommendation is to use all of these repo, but not > testing/bleeding/unstable that some of the repos are offering (like > ATrpms and kde-redhat). Unless you want to get into the loop of testers > and/or developers (you are more than welcome to do so!). > -- OK, I just enabled at-stable. And immediately it wants to remove libpostproc (the video processing library for mplayer) and rpmlibs, in order to upgrade mplayer (and family) and apt, respectively. What's going on here? -- Temlakos <temlakos@xxxxxxxxx>
