On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:22:21 -0500 Kevin Martin <kevintm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > Kevin > -- Just a minor point: Apple's os's work only on very specific h/w. Besides, you paid for the privilege of having your h/w and s/w dictated. But why are we paying so much attention to the OP again? Ranjan -- 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
