Re: Another funny update?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 6/15/2010 7:18 PM, Marcel Rieux wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:05 PM, David Boles <dgboles@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:dgboles@xxxxxxxxx>> 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
>     <mailto: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.
> 
> 
> Have you read this message:
> 
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-June/375289.html
> 
> How can rpmfusion provide the module for a kernel it's not expecting
> because the one in testing -- posted yesterday!!!! -- is an earlier
> kernel? This seems to me like an important post and everybody ignores it.
> 
> rpmfusion is not at fault. Unless it's admissible for Fedora to play
> tricks on rpmfusion, the whole problem lies with Fedora.
> 
> If there's something I don't get, what is it?
> 


How is this for an explanation?

Forbidden items

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ForbiddenItems

-- 


  David

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
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
[Index of Archives]     [Older Fedora Users]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [EPEL Announce]     [EPEL Devel]     [Fedora Magazine]     [Fedora Summer Coding]     [Fedora Laptop]     [Fedora Cloud]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Education]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Scitech]     [Fedora Robotics]     [Fedora Infrastructure]     [Fedora Websites]     [Anaconda Devel]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora Fonts]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Management Tools]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora R Devel]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kickstart]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Fedora Legal]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora OCaml]     [Coolkey]     [Virtualization Tools]     [ET Management Tools]     [Yum Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Gnome Users]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Fedora Sparc]     [Libvirt Users]     [Fedora ARM]

  Powered by Linux