Fedora needs more evangelism for repositories

[Mike Fedyk]

Michael Schwendt wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:39:54 -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> 
> 
>>Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
>>>What do you do if another package was prepared for and tested with the
>>>newer version of mplayer?
>>>
>>>Example: repo A (priority), repo B
>>>
>>>  "libfoo 1.0"    is from repo A
>>>  "libfoo 1.1rc2" is from repo B
>>>
>>>  "bar" from repo A  was built and tested with libfoo 1.0 from repo A
>>>  "baz" from repo B  was built with libfoo 1.1rc2 from repo B
>>>
>>>You install "bar + libfoo 1.0" from repo A, the higher libfoo 1.1rc2 is
>>>ignored due to prioritized Apt-pinning.
>>>
>>>What happens if you want to install "baz"?
>>
>>I pretty much aviod that by using priorities above 1000 which will 
>>install a package from a repository even if it is a downgrade.
> 
> 
> Exactly that is the problem. Or you haven't understood my example yet.

Hmm, I looked at the example, and I honestly can't tell you what would 
happen.  Though, I'm sure there are some packages with that setup on the 
repositories.

I'd look for a setup that would bring the lib from repo b if there are 
no packages from repo A depending on the lib package.  But, if the 
package is incompatible with the fedora.us and livana packages, it 
probably needs more testing.

But, in this case, I'd suggest you use (to avoid the problem above) 
fedora core + fedora.us + livana each with priorities above 1000 and one 
other repository with a priority between 501 and 989.

Anyway, that's to avoid the problem, I'll do some tests when I get a 
chance to verify if it's a problem at all.

Mike