On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 09:47:55AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Well, that should be their (the users') call to make, understanding the > risks/rewards for using bits from Alternatives (of CCRMA). I'm not arguing one way or another here yet, but here's an example of the "nightmare" I encountered. MythTV is cool. ATrpms packages MythTV for Fedora. Sweet, and it works fine for me. Then I want to upgrade from FC4 to FC5. Dozens of Core packages have been replaced by versions from ATrpms now. Even though ATrpms repos now have FC5 stuff in them, the upgrade was, shall we say, painful? I wound up uninstalling as many of the ATrpms packages as I could (several forcably re-installing an older FC4 version), in order to get the upgrade to work. It took *me* 4+ hours (and I think I understand this better than the average user). For anyone else, it should have been a "backup my mythtv database and re-install from scratch" scenario. Before we go advocating for Alternatives that replace packages from Core/Extras, I want to really understand the reasoning behind *why* anything believes the Alternatives packages must exist in the first place (i.e. what's wrong with the versions already in Core/Extras that can't be worked around in another fashion besides wholesale replacement). Otherwise, we're just encouraging end-user frustration. -Matt
