On 12/29/05, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That sounds too sneaky. While such a setup would generate grand > headaches to most 3rd party repos (if not all, if there any big one > w/o replacements?) as you and Thorsten already outlined (so it's > better not to get as far as to have this as a default), I'd rather > find a different solution to this problem, and I believe the other 3rd > party repo maintainers would feel the same. It's not a repository war > to invent new ways of dumping the other side (I hope). > > Certainly this kind of yum setup would not be a supported setup by the > repos needing these replacements, so either way you look at it, this > idiom cannot be welcomed by any such repo. In fact it would make yum > itself as a depsolver unusable for these repos. > > So to answer your question directly: ATrpms would try to avoid such a > setup by all (fair) means, and not having ATrpms at all on your client > system would be a preferable setup to one with broken dependencies. I think protectbase by default is a particularly bad idea for a number of reasons. But if i understand the original poster correctly, the problem he wants solved is a way to easily update packages in a way that recognizes from where installed packages were originally installed from after selectively install packages from a number of different vendors. I don't see a good solution to this problem since the rpmdb doesn't keep track of this sort of information. The closest thing that can be used to aid this sort of update is gpg signatures. -jef -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
