yum 2.1.13 in updates-testing
seth vidal
skvidal at phy.duke.edu
Sun Feb 6 04:45:52 UTC 2005
> Deliberately disabled 3rd party repos to test new yum and new Extras
> repo. Seems yum should ideally notice the conflict in apt versions
> earlier in the process, before asking the user to confirm the upgrade
> (or should I say downgrade?).
It's just a bug - I'll look into it.
> I get the same failure with ATrpms,
> FreshRPMS, Dag, NR, NewRPMS, locally-built and Macromedia (my usual
> [excessive?] set of 3rd party repos) added to the mix. Only way to
> avoid the conflict/error seems to be to remove Extras - in which case,
> result is "No Packages marked for Update/Obsoletion".
> Looks like Extras does not play nicely with ATrpms, FreshRPMS, ... any
> more than Fedora.US did - or vice versa. Perhaps the situation will
> improve now that Extras is on the Red Hat server. Otherwise, will just
> stick with the "compatible" set of repos plus home-built where required.
1. extras isn't built on the red hat server
2. why do feel the need to attribute to malice that which is simply a
bug?
Do you really think I care enough about other repositories to go out my
way to hurt them by not making yum catch this?
cmon. let's be reasonable here. there's no need for drama.
-sv
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list