On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 08:05:19AM -0700, Robin Laing wrote: > Paul Howarth wrote: >>Bob Marcan wrote: >>>Paul Howarth wrote: >>>>$ rpm -qlp xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21_1.rhfc3.at.i386.rpm | >>>>grep libvia >>>> /usr/X11R6/lib/libviaXvMC.so.1 >>>> /usr/X11R6/lib/libviaXvMC.so.1.0 >>>> If you're not getting this package, perhaps you've configured yum >>>> not to update your xorg packages from atrpms, or perhaps you've >>>> picked up a later version from elsewhere? >> so an atrpms user should be getting >> xorg-x11-libs-6.8.1-12.FC3.21_1.rhfc3.at as an upgrade, which >> contains the libviaXvMC.so.1 library that the OP (an atrpms user) >> was looking for. >>> Mixing this repos are a mess. >> Where's the mixing? Everything the OP needed was either an FC3 >> package or available at atrpms. > I have said it in the past. I have had these little(?) issues with > atrpms. I don't doubt that Axel is doing what he does for a reason > but for me, atrpms has been a headache. Why does atrpms packages > always require only atrpms packages to work? It doesn't, it requires a library which any package can offer. If there is only a package at ATrpms offering this lib, then it looks like an explicit dependency to you, but it is not. > Why couldn't I upgrade an rpm with a non atrpms without dependency > problems? Why is there an ATrpms package which differs from what you want to upgrade to in the first place? Obviously because the ATrpms has either bug fixes or enhanced functionality (the latter is true in this case). But the user would be able to upgrade mplayer to any future non-ATrpms package, BTW. He would just lose support for unichrome. At any rate, if you would have a better suggestion of how to add unichrome support as requested by a ton of users, be my guest! :) > Why should I have to force an update to a newer non-atrpms package? Ouch! Never use --force or --nodeps! > Heck, it has been months since I used atrpms and I still run into > problems with some packages and updates. --force and --nodeps will certainly generate far more problems than --they solve. Don't blame ATrpms or any other repo for that. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpsWDDOnELGL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
