On Fri, 2005-06-03 at 09:47, Robin Laing wrote: > > > > The real problem is that the 3rd party repositories (freshrpms, DAG, > > etc.) existed long before the fedora project, providing updates for > > RH versions that otherwise would have required a subscription to > > obtain automatically along with additional packages. Then the > > fedora repository used different conventions. If the 3rd party > > sites change conventions, their existing users will at best have to > > download everything touched again and at worst, have broken systems. > > I do agree with you to a point. > > But with a new release (FC4), why not support the newer version as the > main site. There are systems around that have been 'yum upgrade'ed from a RH 7.x base. It's not supported or recommended, but people have their reasons for doing it. > Any third party site could (should) work with the > distribution method of the release and work as seamlessly as possible. > They should also try to work together as some are so they don't > duplicate packages and/or their packages are mutually compatible. That implies a single point of control, which can't really happen and would not be a good thing if it did. > It is a pain to install from one repository only to find that you > cannot update from a different repository or even from the fedora core > site. This is one of those issues about multiple repositories that > has burned me. No site should require the installation of a package > that prevents the upgrading from another site. Agreed, but what if a package you want needs a core library rebuilt with different compile options that make it incompatible with other packages. > In general, I prefer the move to Extras as it makes it easier for a > basic install. Then use yum or preferred method to install the > packages wanted. As long as nothing needs conflicting options and the contents you want have no legal questions in any location... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
