libogg and upgrading core packages policy

[Richard June]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> Yes, but choose based on what criteria? security, stability and
> functionality is what you check for.
>
> The argument of some (all?) repos carrying updates to the vendor repo
> is almost exclusively used with the background of stability.
Ok, let's drop stability for a minute. how's this for a good reason to be 
*VERY* wary of upgrading vendor pkgs.
If you use FC1 and upgrade to KDE 3.2, any program which uses arts for audio 
output becomes somewhat broken. IIRC it wasn't anything too major like it 
wouldn't run, just it wouldn't run in KDE.

> Well, people dislike it, because some folks have been doing lots of PR
> against upgrading vendor supplied packages, usually in the sense that
> repo ABC is bad because it does so, so choose repo XYZ. You all know
> who these folks are ...
And these repos are usually the ones that cause breakage with the vendors pkgs 
and with other vendor compatible repos. before I knew better I used one of 
said repos. I confused the hell out of poor yum.

- -- 
Public Key available Here:
http://www.bravegnuworld.com/~rjune/rjune.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA1H1EoEoft/7GAvIRAhHxAJ9vrOmhg52Xos3mhmDOc5Gov2v8xQCeLGoJ
PMmr3UI3yBg2R8AxpuXPCjw=
=EFuh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----