On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 00:43 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2005 at 12:52:59PM -0400, David Cary Hart wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-07-25 at 17:39 +0100, Paul Howarth wrote: > > > Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > ok, another "yum update" issue. after a recent update, i got a > > > > whack of new /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo files as part of the > > > > medley-package-config package, which included a new (and apparently > > > > broken) atrpms.repo file. > > > > > > Sounds like ATrpms is self-destructing ;-) > > > > Anecdotally, it looks like 30% of the problems on this list are related > > to mixed repos. Axel (who contributes much to the community) makes > > matters more complicated with proprietary dependencies. > > What is a "proprietary dependency"??? It sound like having packages > depend on non GPL components (well ipw2x00 kmdls do depend on > non-GPL'd firmware packages, if that is waht you mean, but I think > not). First let me assure you again that I'm not being critical of your efforts. By proprietary, I mean the additional ATRPM installation packages which are unique to ATRPMS. > > And compatibility problems are certainly not as high as 30%. That's > quite an overestimation IMHO. I never said they were. I said that 30% of the problems discussed in the Fedora list seem to be associated with third party repo compatibility issues. Similarly, I suspect that Fedora installs properly across a broad range of hardware. Perhaps 1% of users have install problems yet they make up another 25% of the issues discussed on this list (both percentages are just guesses). > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list -- Tired of spam? Do YOUR part: http://www.BoulderPledge.org Our DNSRBL - Eliminate Spam: http://www.TQMcube.com/spam_trap.htm RBLDNSD HowTo: http://www.TQMcube.com/rbldnsd.htm Multi-RBL Check: http://www.TQMcube.com/rblcheck.htm
