On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:31, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.
What currently valid reason is there for breaking the ability
to get the stock distribution updates? Can't everything that
has to be recompiled with different options also be renamed or
relocated?
> For having users decide their experimentation level themselves, some
> repos have stability split repos, which is a far more useful thing to
> do.
It doesn't make much sense to me to call a repo stable if it is
still allowed to contain rpms that conflict with the distribution's
own.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
