At 10:56 AM -0500 8/9/05, 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? I don't think rpm or yum have that concept either, which makes it hard for 3rd parties to implement it. SmartPM has something related, sort of. Something like it is needed, and it should work not just for the distro but between 3rd party repos. Currently there isn't even any info in a rpm that says what repo it came from, though there is info about the packager which sort of implies where it came from. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
