On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 18:07:15 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 17:22 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:07:35 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > > Where would be the point in providing and maintaining a separate Apt > > > > repository (and additional meta data) if there is no such official > > > > repository for Fedora Core and Fedora Extras? > > > > > > livna is not connected to FC nor FE :=) > > > > No, but facing limited resources, too. > I have to reiterate: The overhead of building apt repos is close to > zero. How do you think GWDG is able to maintain this amount of apt-repos > (They are providing apt-repos for almost all existing 3rd party repos > for SuSE). Do they? -- A moot point nevertheless. They may have an administrator, an Apt advocate, who considers it important to offer lots of Apt repositories. Maybe he has taken the time to create some scripts which help him. Maybe they use Apt for their own machines. But what does that mean for rpm.livna.org? It's a spare-time project with other maintenance requirements. And with that I enter a loop to aforementioned question. > > > > And has anything changed with regard to "ExcludeArch: x86_64 ppc64" > > > > and Apt's upstream maintenance? > > > > > > No, but ... has anything changed in RH's packaging? apt is able to > > > support SuSE's packaging on 64bit platforms: > > > see ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/suse/apt > > > > Is that one multi-lib or 64-bit-only? > I don't know (I don't use SuSE nor x86_64), but as it seems to me, it's > multilibbed: > > ftp://ftp.gwdg.de/linux/suse/apt/SuSE/9.3-x86_64/RPMS.base/ > > I don't know which trick SuSE applies rpm-wise, but AFAICT, their > apt-get sources are the same as FE's. Maybe no trick at all. Some Fedora 3rd party repos provide Apt and Apt repositories for x86_64, too, and you can see users who run into shocking dependency problems, such as Apt offering to remove everything.
