On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:04:59 -0400, Temlakos wrote:
Sean O Sullivan wrote:
The more repo's you want, the more conflicts and dependancy issues you will have - it is not a good idea to add every repo you can find.
Personally, base/updated-released/extras, then dag and freshrpms are very reliable I find. atrpms i usually fine, although wouldn't use for a server. Other than that wouldn't touch many others - especially not livna ( http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/FAQ.php#D )
Regards,
Sean
Are you sure about that? The way I heard it, livna and extras were part of the same mold. Now I'll let Dag and Axel speak for themselves, but the impression I got from following the link you gave is that they wouldn't even want you to use extras, just because the extras maintainers won't "play nice" with them.
What solution could you think of?
Well, /somebody/ has to meet the other one halfway! All that I see on the extras site is that they want us to encourage the /developers/ of the applications or other packages involved to /submit their packages to extras/ for inclusion. Or they encourage /us/ to submit the packages to extras. /Not one word/ do they speak about coordinating their efforts with those of men like Dag and Axel.
I'd go along with using extras exclusively, except for one thing: Extras never has had the selection that Dag and Axel have had. The head of extras can speak for himself, of course, but the impression I have is that the "quality control" process even to /get/ a package into extras takes longer than the typical release cycle of Fedora.
Extras did surprise me when, the first time I configured my system (back in FC3) to use extras, I got twenty-two updates of packages (like anjuta) that I had installed from dag or at-stable or freshrpms. So their selection is moving up. I'd like to see the process move a bit faster, that's all.
In the meantime--well, now that I have smart, I can have the additional selection of dag or at-stable without "breaking" a package that the "alternatives" conflict with.
Temlakos
