On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 01:56:49PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > 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? No, certainly not everything. And if you relocate all to /usr/local what benefits will you have??? You would either have /usr/local before /usr, so it's the same like unistalling the old package, or after, which is the same like not installing the new one ... > > 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. Not if you are defining "updates"/"enhances" equal to "conflicts". In this manner even updates-released is not stable, as it "conflicts" core packages ... :) Almost all my setups are Fedora Core/RHEL full installs with ATrpms upon that (and more). Nothing _conflicts_, and it *is* _stable_. Yes, there can be bugs in repos and the vendor distribution, which for third party repos usually are in the non-replacement parts, and for the vendor in the replaced ones ... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp8GHl0DUY6I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
