At 9:52 AM +0200 8/7/05, Peter Boy wrote: ... >You are right, but it may be a problem, if a repo replaces packages >without the user beeing aware of it. And it is quite difficult to use >yours or dag's repo sometimes. If you do a yum update with all repos >activated, some packages will be updated by your repo or dag's, weather >those packages I use from your repo require it or not! That is >definitely a problem, I think. And such a replacement may introduce >problems for other software which are not visible in terms of the rpm >classifications. > >Therefore there is a urgent need for cooperation to simplify things. ... Fedora's packages sometimes include FC# (FC3, FC4) as part of the Release field. If all packages included some such thing in the Release we would have a much easier time sorting such stuff out. All packages from Fedora would have FC# or FE#, all packages from Livna might have Li# (or LiS#, LiU#, and LiT#) or some such, ATRPMs might be At#, and so on. Currently, packages normally contain Packager and Vendor tags, but these don't actually specify the repository. Alternatively, RPM could be modified to have a new tag in the preamble, but I think that would be more difficult all around. Extending the sometime practice of marking packages with FC# would be something that could be done by each packager independently, with a minimum of cooperation. Once it looked like this was happening, the tools like yum could be extended to make some use of it in resolving or reporting conflicts. I plan to mark my own packages with my initials (Release: 1_GAN). It's not perfect, but it should be good enough. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
