Fedora Extras is extra

[Jeff Vian]

On Thu, 2004-12-02 at 08:12 +0100, Bernd Radinger wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 20:41:10 -0600, Jeff Vian <jvian10 at charter.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2.  It tried to remove libaasound.so.2 and libFLAC.so.4 plus one other I
> > > > don't remember.  All of which were required for one or more packages
> > > > already installed
> > >
> > > 'flac' and 'alsa-lib' are from FC, not Fedora.us.
> > Exactly..  Packages from FC were being modified by an update from
> > fedora.us
> 
> No package at Fedora.us modifies flac or alsa-lib or causes it to be
> removed. None of the packages ``updates'' FC. By definition,
> Fedora.Extras are not permitted to update FC. Again, your theory is
> void..., FUD as Dag Wieers put it. Fact the facts or prove otherwise.
>  
Dag did not call it FUD,  That was Michael.
> > >
> > > > 3. process of elimination identified the problem repo.
> > > > I removed repos, one at a time, and tried the update with each removal,
> > > > then re-added thttp://www.wellsfargo.com/hat repo and removed the next.
> > > > dag, newrpms, freshrpms, atrpms, then last fedora.us.
> > >
> > > That is a side-effect of repository-mixing. Some of the other
> > > repositories do upgrade or modify 'alsa-lib' and 'flac', Fedora.us
> > > doesn't.
> > 
> > In my experience and the example above your statement is incorrect (at
> > least in this case).  Removal of the fedora.us repo from my list was the
> > only action that eliminated the dependency problem.
> 
> You have not yet understood the problems and side-effects of mixing
> incompatible repositories.  That is something you need to work on
> before it makes sense to continue this discussion.
> 
I understand it exactly, and my experience provided a stark example of
that.  That is why Fedora.us and livna.org are not in my list any more.

I will use them for selected packages not available elsewhere, but not
standard. 
> -- 
> Bernd ``who's getting bored of this list'' R.
>