[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: status of up2date and rhn-applet

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 12:36 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> I really wonder what makes accepting "package replacements" so hard,
> when you accept "kernel functionality replacement". If I were to fear
> about destabilisation of my system, then I would place avoiding kernel
> modules at number 1.
> But no, some are upset that libtool gets replaced, but they happily
> effectivly replace their kernel modules. And are even (obviously)
> using the testing repo from ATrpms, as the kernel modules you want are
> in there.

The real issue here is that the user wants one little thing from AT.
They want to try out an experimental test module for a piece of
hardware.  They don't want to replace many core packages.  They get
frustrated when they want to install this little thing and they get a
rather confusing dep list.

Just why do you force your replacement packages on users?  What is it
about your replacement core packages that are so much better for Core
users that anybody who uses any of your rpms must have all those
replacements?[1]  It seems to me that you're just waving your hand over
it and saying "oh they're fine... don't worry about those..."  You're
saying that if you want to use a experimental module (and possibly
remove it right directly) well too bad, you have to have all these
packages too, and you have to like it.

[1] It has been a while since I used any AT rpms.  I don't know if it is
still the case that one AT package would mean replacement of a lot of
Core packages anymore.  I'm just going by other people's emails and your

Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
Was I helpful?  Let others know:

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]