FC5 and Yum Plugins
Michael A. Peters
mpeters at mac.com
Sun Jan 1 08:41:12 UTC 2006
On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 19:31 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2005 at 05:17:02PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-12-31 at 11:49 -0500, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> > Er, or just volunteer to package mythtv for livna?
> That is the second time this suggestion comes up in this thread. What
> makes livna and ATrpms different, or say livna preferable to ATrpms in
> this context? At the beginning of this thread some people posted about
> livna replacing packages just as well.
> Just for the note: Fedora itself, when it wasn't merged with RHL (aka
> fedora.us) decided to have vendor packages replaced. packages like
> shadow-utils or rpm itself.
To be honest - I don't think in general that livna should replace extras
packages. It seems that in the cases where it does, it is the same
I didn't use Fedora before it became Fedora Core - replacing a vendor
package is sometimes necessary but should be done with extreme caution.
I think protect base plugin is wrong.
I like the way smart handled it when I ran it - I could give highest
priority to updates, a slightly lower priority to core/extras/livna, and
a lower priority to freshrpm's - but give the individual packages I
wanted from freshrpms the highest possible priority.
If there's a yum plugin that allows that, then it is worth using - but
the potential problems outlined by you and and by Jeff Spaleta have
convinced me that the protect base plugin should not be enabled because
of the core/extras package movement would require protecting both, which
is not good because Extras isn't core, and alternative to Extras
repositories should be fine for people who (for whatever reason) decide
they don't want to use Extras at all. That freedom shouldn't be made
Maybe yum could use a database of its own for keeping track of what
package comes from what? That's probably not a good solution. How does
smart do it?
More information about the fedora-devel-list