On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 01:17 -0800, Jarod Wilson wrote: > Whoops, misread what Thorsten said, I think. I don't think he was advocating > for mythtv into Extras, he was talking about putting it into another repo. > What's wrong with the ATrpms version? Is it simply a matter of principle that > people refuse to use the ATrpms package(s), since ATrpms can/does override > core packages? A protectbase option seems like an idea solution for that, so > why dismiss it w/"use a repo that doesn't override"... > The question is, what good is this plugin doing? If you enable a 3rd party repo, to get something like MythTV, you'll need to get the deps. If the deps happen to replace core/extras packages, then they do. They are necessary for the software you are asking to install. So you're going to override it to install your software. This is in the install context. In the update context, then sure if the 3rd party repo nvr for a package is higher than the nvr for the core/extras package then this plugin might be useful to ignore that, unless ignoring would break deps with something like MythTV. Seems to me that there should be a different method than just protecting core/extras. Seems the 'protection' should be based around replacing for no other reason than nvr comparison. If the replacement is pulled in for an honest dep satisfaction, rather than just a higher nvr comparison, then it should be allowed. Otherwise prompt user or block. This keeps 3rd party repos working properly and keeps users systems as close to strict core/extras as possible w/out breaking user installed software. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
