On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 09:12:12AM +0200, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>
>
> fred smith wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 08:19:37PM -0400, John wrote:
> >>So what's the proper workaround here? As far as I'm concerned, Dag has
> >>broken the update system on our Centos boxes. Is there any other way to
> >>allow my system to be updated than to disable using Dag's repo?
> >>
> >>(not including removing Audacity--which I don't use a LOT, but I do use
> >>it.)
> >>
> >>###################################################
> >>JohnStanley Writes:
> >>
> >>Sure is, just use yum prioritys so when you do yum update it will exclude
> >>"DAGS-Repo". Just follow the tutorial on wiki.centos.org.
> >
> >I've had that set up ever since I first added any repositories.
> >I've got it set to a priority of 10, is there a better value to use?
>
> yum priority is for giving priority to one repo over another...
> Totally irrelevant here, the the issues are rpmforge-only: the rf
> audacity needs GTK 2.6 while new builds of VLC and others (still rf) now
> need GTK 2.8.
> Both GTK 2.6 and GTK 2.8 are available in rpmforge.
> So, you have to choose your own priorities, no software can make the
> choice for you:
> - either you upgrade GTK to 2.8, which requires uninstalling audacity
> (until some time in the probably not so distant future where Dag
> resolves the issues and manages to build audacity with GTK 2.8);
> - or you stick to GTK 2.6, which means you have to keep your older
> versions of VLC and any other package whose newer versions were rebuilt
> with GTK 2.8.
>
> Why is this such a big deal??
>
> If it's really that critical to you, I'm sure Dag could use your help
> getting that audacity thing to build with GTK 2.8.
It's a big deal only in the sense that with a properly configured
yum system I cannot update my system without disabling a repository
that wants to give me incompatible updates, incompatible with itself.
I can certainly disable rpmforge, and as far as I can see that's my
only option here unless I want to mess around with audacity.
Somehow I was operating under the (apparent) delusion that the repo
maintainers would ensure they didn't create situations like this, so
that users wouldn't end up unable to update.
but if I don't want to do the devel work and especially if I was a user
who didn't know how to disable a repo, I'd be stuck here. So I asked if
there was any choice other than doing that. I've not heard that other
people find it to be an issue, so maybe I'm just overly sensitive,
but it seems like a breakage to me. What do I know.
I do not and did not mean to be offensive to Dag, and I apologize if
I was--it just seemed like an issue that would be affecting a lot more
people than just me and I wanted to see what others were doing about it.
So far I've not heard what that is.
--
---- Fred Smith -- fredex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -----------------------------
The eyes of the Lord are everywhere,
keeping watch on the wicked and the good.
----------------------------- Proverbs 15:3 (niv) -----------------------------
Attachment:
pgphzIClKV3Fn.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
