Am Samstag, den 01.10.2005, 15:54 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 03:18:11PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 01.10.2005, 09:15 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm: > > > [...] > > > > > > The medley-package-config is not required for smart, you can use > > > atrpms-package-config also. > > > "extras" is already defined in fedora-extras.repo from fedora-release, > > it's defined again in fedoraextras.repo from medley-package-config. With > > atrpms-package-config "updates-testing" still has a duplicate entry, since > > it is already defined in fedora.repo and again in base.repo from your > > package. > > You didn't fully upgrade to ATrpms' contents, this happens on partial > upgrades/installs. Sorry, I didn't know that you are offering a fedora-release package, too. > > Unfortunately FC changes its deployment method of depsolver config > files on every release. The mostly sane config was to split the > fedora-release into a proper release package and a depsolver config > package, where the latter can be extended or simply replaced. But you > only get this split, if you do an upgrade against ATrpms. Although I'm not having any prbls with your packages and honor your work there are reasons not to upgrade against your (or any other) repo. > > Now, some will see an opportunity to cry out "murderer" and "how can > you touch Fedora Core packages" and so on. Whoever cares can find > miriads of threads on several lists that discuss these issues, please > keep this thread clean ;) I know this topic has been beaten to death, so I'm not going to comment on that. Just an example what happens while playing with different config packages: $ ls -l atrpms* insgesamt 40 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list $ rpm -i --replacefiles /var/cache/yum/atrpms/packages/medley-package-config-102-1.rhfc4.at.i386.rpm Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/atrpms.list created as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/atrpms.list.rpmnew Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/livna.list created as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/livna.list.rpmnew Warnung: /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nrpms.list created as /etc/apt/sources.list.d/nrpms.list.rpmnew Warnung: /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources created as /etc/sysconfig/rhn/sources.rpmnew Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/freshrpms.repo created as /etc/yum.repos.d/freshrpms.repo.rpmnew Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo created as /etc/yum.repos.d/livna.repo.rpmnew Warnung: /etc/yum.repos.d/nrpms.repo created as /etc/yum.repos.d/nrpms.repo.rpmnew $ ls -l atrpms* insgesamt 156 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list.rpmnew $ rpm -e --nodeps medley-package-config $ sources.list.d]# ls -l atrpms* insgesamt 48 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 553 21. Aug 11:13 atrpms.list.rpmnew As you can see my old customized atrpms file is gone, so are the others. > > > IMHO all your *-package-config rpms should ether be _fully_ compatible > > at least to fedora-release > > They are as a set of packages (and that's how any repo should be > considered IMHO), you need to make a full upgrade. IMHO a repo is a source for packages but one shouldn't be forced to upgrade against any repo if one doesn't want to. > > > (since it is part of a core install, maybe livna-release, too) or > > smart/apt from your repo should not depend on them. > > They don't, try rpm -qR smart/apt, there is no trace of any > *-package-config. but smart depends on files provided by *-package-config $ rpm -qf `rpm -qR smart | grep distro` medley-package-config-102-1.rhfc4.at > This is intended, so anyone can reuse the depsolvers > with his own *-package-config (or *-release) package. All the packages > require is a repo-agnostic file dependency on their master config > file(s). > > I don't argue that this is the perfect solution, only a good working > one for using several repos with several depsolvers. There are > probably better ways to do it, and if you find one, I'll gladly accept > patches :) My suggestion is to remove yum configuration/everything provided by fedora-release from atrpms/medley-package-config and use fedora-release from core instead of your own. But of course that's you decision. > > > P.S.: Nether medley-package-config nor atrpms-package-config are listed > > at www.atrpms.net. > > Did you try google? If there's an index page I don't see no reason for google ;-) > It's the first link in > > http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.atrpms.net+medley-package-config+atrpms-package-config > > or try rpm -qi on the package to see that its srpm is > 3rd-party-package-config and go to > > http://atrpms.net/3rd-party-package-config/ Ok, now I got it. I didn't realize that packages are sorted by their srpms. IMHO the name 3rd-party-package-config is misleading: A package named 3rd-party-* should not include config files for core and extras, for they are not 3rd party be definition. What's the use of an empty 3rd-party-package-config.rpm - no files inside, no requires, nothing to provide? It might be better to remove it from your repo if possible?! Christoph P.S.: Pls don't get me wrong: I really honor your work for the fedora community, although some of above statemenents might not sound that way.
