Words by R. G. Newbury [Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:47:48PM -0400]: > It is time for this thread to die! But no-one seems to have > a wooden stake or a silver bullet! > Yes, but you're killing it with misinformation. > I have collected a few comments below with my response: > > "But the updates in the stable updates you pointed to are NOT the ones which > caused that. Your KDE 4 must be coming from Rawhide (development) or > kde-redhat unstable." > > No longer true. Which is part of the fog which enveloped the start of this > thread. If you look at any of the update mirrors, such as > http://linux.nssl.noaa.gov/fedora/linux/updates/8/i386 > you will find kdebase4, kdelibs4 and kdebase-runtime (4.0.1...etc). I > suppose those *were* in dev, but are no longer (February 20th) > There is no KDE *Desktop* on 8. Those are just auxiliary and devel packages, they don't conflict in any way with any instalation of KDE3 that you may have. Got it? > > "After a brief following of this thread, I am unable to see how this > could happen. However, the yum logs could help us understand, and if > necessary, avoid this in the future. Could you please post the last part > of your yum log - ie the part from say the date before when you were > adding the extra packages. This is found in /var/log/yum.log {or if it > was rolled over recently in /var/log/yum-2008????.log > Also, were any updates done using rpm directly ?" > > The yum logs are long gone. I nuked it and started again. But I do not now > need them to know what happened. > No, I think you do. > "Well, I have kde4 too, but I had to take action to get it. I had to > enable the development repo(s), and then I track rawhide until f9." > > That must have been prior to February 20. I did NOT have dev enabled. > FEDORA-UPDATES.REPO IS ENABLED BY DEFAULT (confirmed by a bare metal install > this morning). > Fedora updates is *NOT* fedora-development. Updates are, well, updates, to the current stable fedora version, of course. And I guess it's a good thing they are enabled. I like mine that way. > > "Okay, adding atrpms to the mix can surely complicate your life a bit. > If you enable atrpms you can end up pulling in more than you want. > I'd recommend disabling it by default and then selectively enabling it > at the command line when you want to install a specific package from > there." > > "Also note that you could easily install mplayer and all of its deps > from livna (or atrpms - but don't try mixing the two without a lot of > care)." > > As far as I am aware the repo mplayer rpms are not xvmc enabled (leastways, > they have never run with '-vo xvmc -vc ffmpegmc' (whatever) for me). And you > still need faac, faad, lame etc. *and their devel packages* to compile > mplayer. That is what I was trying to do. And that is ALL I was trying to > do. > Next try you should try to do what you try to do with your eyes opened. It helps a lot, trust me. > > > > And I think I can still call 'stupid' on the maintainers. > > "No, you can't do that yet. You've provided no evidence that they made > any packaging mistakes that caused the mess you find yourself in." > > I think I can: on 2 points. > No you can't, what they do is unpayed work. You can critize in a constructive way or you can try to help. > ">>I'd recommend disabling it by defaultand then selectively enabling it > > > at the command line when you want to install a specific package from > > > there." > > "No, please don't. If you do that, then better don't use the repo at > all. This practice leads to phantom bugs that people then consider > being caused by ATrpms which is not correct." > > And I follow Axel's advice on this matter. > > SYNOPSIS: > > 1. DANGER WARNING. Updates are not commutative nor reversible. > 2 DANGER WARNING. The Updates repo is enabled by default. > 3. The kde4 rpms may be packaged improperly, such that not all are > installed. Ok. I'm start to think that you have a severe understanding problem. Which KDE4 rpms are you taking about and from which repo ? No need to answer. No, really. > Way back in the beginning someone noted that the fastest fix is a > re-install. > No, the fastest fix was, an it will always be, to restore from a backup. > And that advice is, unfortunately, true! > No. > Thanks for the memories...this thread is DEAD. > Geoff > Yes, as dead as your capacity to grok anything at all. -- Jose Celestino ---------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.msversus.org/ ; http://techp.org/petition/show/1 http://www.vinc17.org/noswpat.en.html ---------------------------------------------------------------- "If you would have your slaves remain docile, teach them hymns." -- Ed Weathers ("The Empty Box") -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
