On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:56:10AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 03:52, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > And FWIW ATrpms perfectly fits into that set of definitions. Check out > > "Third Party" repository in Fedora's terminology. If you are thinking > > about the old discussion on splitting repos into Fedora Extras and > > Fedora Alternatives setups, then note that the latter was even scraped > > from the terminology page. > > The names of the repositories are not particularly relevant unless > they relate to whether they are: > not allowed > allowed > likely > expected > to contain rebuilt and potentially conflicting versions of RPMS > with the same names as ones in the distribution's official repositories. > Is there any concept like this among the 3rd parties? No, AFAIK not for the dozen or so known repos. And while you could argue that although most repo maintainers consider this distinction irrelevant, they could nevertheless offer this split view, there are valid reasons for not doing so, see other replies in this thread explaining interdependency issues of non-replacement and replacement packages. For having users decide their experimentation level themselves, some repos have stability split repos, which is a far more useful thing to do. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpGvcaCsrsMY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
