On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 09:21, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 12:01:03 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > > Some of the documentation I have seen seems to suggest > > that livna is an official repository, > > but I don't think of it that way. > > Whatever documentation you have read, it explained the situation > incorrectly. The infrastructure at livna.org does not belong to the Fedora > Project. It's an open 3rd party community project, with some of the > contributors supporting both Fedora Extras and rpm.livna.org. What may be > at least a bit special, is that at rpm.livna.org it is tried as much as > possible to play nice with Core and Extras and not upgrade, rename or > replace any packages from Core or Extras. The rare exception being > applications, which cannot be extended with plugins, e.g. Audacity. > Conflicts shall never happen and would be a bug (http://bugzilla.livna.org). While there is no relationship between the organizations/projects (and can't be for obvious reasons), the livna repository not only 'plays nice' with the official core/extra repositories but it requires you to use them because packages that exist in core/extras aren't duplicated at livna and are often dependencies in the livna packages. I'm not quite sure why the other 3rd party repositories don't work that way too. I understand it with earlier releases where there are compatibility problems with pre-existing packages, but at this point what justification is there for anyone to build a package that conflicts with core/extras? -- Les Mikesell les@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
