FC4 Repositories

[Temlakos]

Michael A. Peters wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 21:12 -0400, Temlakos wrote:
> 
>>When will the Fedora Extras and Livna repositories be ready, and when 
>>will I be able to download the latest version of apt from 
>>download.redhat.com for use with FC4?
> 
> 
> FC4 Extras should be ready when FC4 is released.
> At least it looks that way.
> 
> rpm.livna.org has repos for FC4T2 and FC4T3 so my guess they also will
> publish shortly after FC4 release.
> 
> 
>>I've already decided to wipe everything out and start clean, in order to 
>>eliminate some repo mixing problems I've been having. If I read things 
>>right, I should be able to use Fedora Extras, Livna, JPackage, and a 
>>"Flash" repo for most, if not all, of my open-source software needs. For 
>>the rest, I'll get the rpm's or the tarballs.
> 
> 
> imho that is a good idea
> 
> 
> 
>>Also: will the FreshRPMS/Dag/Dries/Axel family of repos be compatible 
>>with the Extras/Livna family or not? If I may so observe, the continued 
>>incompatibilities between the two families serves no one's interest, as 
>>far as I can see--least of all that of the Fedora Core user.
> 
> 
> The FreshRPMS maintainer has contributed some of his stuff to Extras.
> I have no clue about Dag/Dries/Axel. I don't use them. I don't need
> them.
> 
> I know I will get disagreements, but imho it is the responsibility of
> third party repositories to make sure they don't conflict with
> Core/Updates/Extras as those are officially sanctioned repositories.
> While not sanctioned by RH/Fedora due to legal reasons, they also should
> not conflict with rpm.livna.org since that is where a lot of Extras/Core
> developers put their stuff that is not suitable for Extras.
> 
> Some cooperation is nice, and it is available - the maintainers of those
> repos are free to participate in discussions on the lists, and some of
> them do.
> 

I agree with you on that line.

In answer to Alexander, yes, I've been following the discussion. In my 
opinion the discussion has been inconclusive. Which is a polite way of 
saying that I have seen nothing that I can safely construe as a pledge 
by any repo maintainer to maintain compatibility with Extras or Livna. 
All I'm doing now is asking for that pledge--and asking it here, in this 
forum, which is probably the most appropriate forum for such a 
discussion, anyway.

And I'm asking for that pledge after Synaptic broke and stayed broken 
and is still broken--and I'm not likely to fix it this side of the FC4 
release. And frankly, I don't need to read any more explanations of why 
any particular package is broken, and why I had to remove a package and 
then re-install it just to make that throbbing screamer ("explanation 
point") go away. More to the point, I have clients, whom I am trying to 
persuade to go to Linux, who will want a set-and-forget solution, or 
close to it. I'm trying to build one--say, by turning on the yum service 
to enable nightly updates on a server that is on 24/7, or learning how 
to use cron. But I can't do that if I'm going to have broken 
dependencies. Neither can my clients.

Temlakos