On Fri, 2005-12-30 at 09:09 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > > You are volunteering to help Axel out by responding to all the bug > reports he's getting from people who are using priorities to filter > out parts of atrpms? Seems only fair. Here you are delibrately > encouraging people to use a method to subvert the structure of the 3rd > party repository and creating an additional burden on the repo > maintainers. When I ran a repo - I had two. One contained packages that did not conflict with core/extras One contained packages that would conflict (replace) packages in core/extras. That's really the way it should be done IMHO - so that users who don't want core/extras packages replaced don't have to, they can temporarily enable the "hot" repo for the specific needs they have (and put proper exludes in base/updates/extras). When someone has a bunch of stuff replaced from a third party repository, are they still running Fedora Core or are they running a hybrid? That's the problem I have with repositories that replace core packages. They may have more features, but I don't know that they get properly patched when vulnerabilities are found, etc. - so replacing a core package is imho a bad idea unless you know you need to. What happens when a third party repository breaks causing yum update to fail? It happens more often than it should, and it leaves users frustrated. Sometimes it can be difficult to resolve the situation. An equivalent of DLL Hell happens because of third party repositories. Not with all of them, I don't know about ATrpms - never used them, but mixing repositories often results in a broken system that can be time consuming to repair. Installing with a safety from that is a good thing - the user can still disable the safety if they want. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
