On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 18:22 -0500, Kevin Martin wrote: > On 06/15/2010 04:05 PM, David Boles wrote: > > On 6/15/2010 4:35 PM, Kevin Martin wrote: > > > >> On 06/15/2010 02:30 PM, mike cloaked wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>> I used to use kmod-nvidia(-PAE) and what I used to do was: > >>> yum check-update > >>> > >>> Then if there was a kernel but no kmod update listed then I did an > >>> update excluding the kernel - > >>> > >>> Later in the day do it again and if the kmod is then available do a > >>> complete update - > >>> Is that so difficult? > >>> > >>> I also used to use akmod-nvidia and found after some trial and error > >>> that there was no -PAE version whereas there was a -PAE version of > >>> kmod-nvidia-PAE so one had to be a little careful about exactly which > >>> package to use! > >>> > >>> Hope this helps. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Not so difficult, just seems like it should be unnecessary. If there > >> are dependencies in installed components that will be broken by an > >> update then the update shouldn't be offered/shown by yum/packagekit > >> until the an updated dependency is satisfied (that sounds odd to me but > >> I hope you understand what I mean). > >> > > > > > > Fedora provides you, free of charge, a perfectly good, working, > > operating system. And they maintain that system. As provided. > > > > You modified it by adding a package, or packages, from a non Fedora > > site(s). Fedora provided improvements and bug fixes for the system that > > they provide and maintain that 'broke' when you modified that system? > > > > You modified your system. So you should fix it. > > > > > This has nothing to do with "who broke what". This has everything to do > with attempting to make Fedora, and other Linux variants, mainstream > enough for the common person to use. Your attitude is why Microsoft, > and to a lesser extent Apple, own the desktop...while Microsoft software > and patches are by no means the end-all-be-all of stability, from an > end-users point of view it's certainly more straight forward than what > we're discussing here. While I applaud Fedora's attempt to not include > closed-source software components, it *does* allow for the availability > of secondary repositories that *do* make closed-source drivers available > (using the same install mechanism that is used to install "Fedora > approved and included" packages) and there should be an effort made to > make sure that the tool is smart enough to handle the dependencies > system-wide. If not, then take Apples approach and close the door on > secondary repos and have complete control over what gets installed on a > machine. The fact of the matter is, it's a good thing that there are > these secondary repos out there to provide much needed "other" > software...if it weren't for those repos, frankly, Fedora would be even > less widely used than it is today. ---- You completely missed the point. This isn't about Microsoft, Apple, market share and other completely irrelevant issues. Fedora doesn't make the packages at issue - rpmfusion does. If you get a kernel that rpmfusion has yet to make their kmod package, boot the earlier kernel until they catch up. Otherwise, take it up with rpmfusion. The kernel package does not have any dependencies. Or I suppose you could write software to check for this situation since it is of course, open source. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
