On Fri, May 27, 2005 at 08:12:05AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-27 at 09:33 +0100, Nigel Metheringham wrote: > > I'd guess this is linked to this thread:- > > http://mythtv.org/pipermail/mythtv-users/2005-May/090094.html > > > > which references this bug report on fedora-list > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-January/msg01826.html > > > > I do use yum, with reasonable success, against the ATrpms (stable) > > repo - the main problem is handling kernel upgrades (with > > requisite add-on module packages). > > 1. that refers to yum 2.1.12 - about 5 versions ago. If anyone is using > yum 2.1.12 I would suggest to not do so > 2. nothing in there says it will break your system, as is always the > case yum will not continue the transaction if there is a broken > dependency > 3. Axel is correct about not using ATrpms all the way. Another term for > the modifications Axel does to the Fedora Core base tree in his packages > would be 'fork'. I think it even goes so far as to > modify /etc/fedora-release to mention ATrpms. This is one reason why I > discourage users from mixing-in ATrpms into their repos, just too much > change to justify it. Such rumors are interesting indeed, and its nice to see where they originate :) No, ATrpms does not modify /etc/fedora-release to mention itself, me or my grandmother. Yes, for instance two of the most prominent bugs that have killed yum on ATrpms are still open: https://devel.linux.duke.edu/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=378 https://devel.linux.duke.edu/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=379 Although some of the issues seem to have been solved. But these threads started with Karsten reporting on yum breaking alsa installation, so there are still issues, and Karsten could possibly say more about that. The reason why ATrpms generally suggests to use apt over yum is mainly the fact that in the last 12 months yum's bugs made ATrpms' yum support inoperational for at least a total amount of 3 months. Other depsolvers most notably apt, despite any bugs they may have, have been performing better (read: they were working). Other reasons for using apt over yum include downgrade support (like needed for FC3's broken immodule support in qt), and the ability to work with a repo even if some packages will not install/upgrade (like the often seen GFS-kernel and kernel mis-dependecies). Any project including yum may have bugs, but my experience with reporting them has been that it needs to hit the main fedora core repo, or any other repo Seth is in close affiliation with, to make it worth fixing. Call it politics or whatever you like, I only see yum breaking on ATrpms far too often, and reluctance to fix it if it only affects ATrpms for the moment of the report. E.g. we have to wait until the same (critical) bug hits fedora core or fedora extras, to see something being done about it. So ATrpms does not only recommend apt over yum, it is often the only viable solution, and over time the only reliable solution. And in any case the recommendation goes as: "If you use yum and it breaks, retry with apt, then report". To place the picture correctly: apt does not support mixed multilib systems (typical FC x86_64 installs) in any way, while yum does. That's one of the greatest advantages of yum as I see it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20050527/3d3e9809/attachment.bin
