On Sun, Aug 07, 2005 at 03:55:56PM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: > 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. That was once true for all non-core repos including fedora.us. The repotag is an optional part of the release tag, e.g. release = <buildid>.<disttag>[.<repotag>] The disttag ensures proper upgrade paths and the repotag is for identifying origin (to humans). They are sometimes confused. The disttag is far more important than the repotag. Please make sure you include disttags! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp6xoOdwZctq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
