Maciej Zenczykowski wrote:
> is there stuff in livna which isn't in dag/dries
> hmm... will have to take a look
Preston Crawford wrote:
> I haven't found much that I needed that wasn't in dag's repository.
> Only two items. Here's what I've found.
> gtkpod - for iPods, obviously
> xine
> mplayer
> mplayer-plugin
> bittorrent
> gkrellm
> irssi - ncurses IRC client
> mozilla-flash
> xmms-mp3
> centericq - ncurses Jabber client
> pine, even (yes, I still sometimes use that)
> Almost everything I've needed has been there.
> And that's a wide range of stuff.
Oops, I guess I sent the wrong signal.
First off, by far, DAG is going to be the most comprehensive.
No way would I dispute that.
Secondly, my preference for Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG is because
of my experience with Fedora Core and "repository mixing."
Nothing against DAG, how he manages to keep up, I have no idea,
but I've had better luck with Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG in the past.
Now I know many people view it as a catch-22 -- the Fedora Extra
team seemed to "keep it itself" in the past, and didn't open up
a lot of things. All while Red Hat expected the same level of
regression testing on Fedora Extras without putting anyone really
on it (and leaving it to the former U of Hawaii team).
But as of January of this year, Red Hat has really opened up the
formal submission process for including things in Fedora Extras,
and put people on regression testing submissions. I'm thinking
about submitting several of my own RPMs (e.g., IMAP). Which
is why I personally prefer to use Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG by
default.
I only tap DAG when he clear super-set of packages has something
that FE/Lorg doesn't.
> The only thing I've installed from downloaded binaries has been Java
> stuff, jdk, eclipse, tomcat, etc. And I like to install that stuff
> manually anyway.
Well, there are some serious licensing issues with some of that
(like Java -- far more than "patent" ones), so that is expected.
--
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx
