11:23 a.m.
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and
this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Regards,
Marcel
11:48 a.m.
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and
this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah.
rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms)
yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update)
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fix
that repo, and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't
use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fahrländer Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ: 5119262 AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12:03 p.m.
On Thursday 30 December 2004 18:48, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed
to fix
that repo, and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't
use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
I hope not using it is not the fix :-)
Anyways, I've managed to install most things I want from ATrpms. It's just
that it does take a lot of time to do this (yum won't do it, so have to look
for the dependencies myself).
Anyways, compiling myself is also not really an option as it would take even
more time so I'll be installing things with yum package by package instead of
having yum finding the dependencies. Updates seem to work fine, if that's not
the case than I'm back to quare one and will compile everything myself again.
Anyways, this is something that needs to be fixed.
Regards,
Marcel
12:45 p.m.
Brian Fahrlander wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 30 Dec 2004 10:49:28 -0700
MIME-Version:
1.0
X-Mailer:
Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Content-Type:
multipart/mixed; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C4EE97.F28CC280"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and
>this makes yum almost unusable.
>
>Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah.
rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms)
yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update)
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fix
that repo, and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't
use it anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
I think that this is a scarry suggestion but it may be the only way to go.
Yesterday it was recommended to try smart package manager from
http://smartpm.org. RPM at DAG as a beta. May be a bit nicer than
the nodeps.
I have removed atrpms from my yum.conf file.
--
Robin Laing
2:41 p.m.
On Thursday 30 December 2004 19:45, Robin Laing wrote:
Yesterday it was recommended to try smart package manager from
http://smartpm.org. RPM at DAG as a beta. May be a bit nicer than
the nodeps.
This smartpm sounds nice.
Anyways, I managed to get all things going from ATrpms. It did take me some
time to get things installed though.
Hopefully things get fixed soon.
Regards,
Marcel
2:54 p.m.
Marcel Janssen wrote:
On Thursday 30 December 2004 19:45, Robin Laing wrote:
>Yesterday it was recommended to try smart package manager from
>http://smartpm.org. RPM at DAG as a beta. May be a bit nicer than
>the nodeps.
>
>
This smartpm sounds nice.
Anyways, I managed to get all things going from ATrpms. It did take me some
time to get things installed though.
Hopefully things get fixed soon.
Regards,
Marcel
I installed smartpm yesterday and I can really recommend using it. It
solved my dependency-hell with .at-packages (though some apps -
'mattricks' for one - didn't agree).
It also makes it easy to downgrade from .at-packages to more easy-going
packages (so to speak).
/Kristian Poul Herkild
4:34 p.m.
On Thursday 30 December 2004 21:54, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
I installed smartpm yesterday and I can really recommend using it.
It
solved my dependency-hell with .at-packages (though some apps -
'mattricks' for one - didn't agree).
So smartpm looks promising. I'll give it a try and see how it does.
Thanks,
Marcel
2:57 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:48:48AM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and
> this makes yum almost unusable.
>
> Is there a fix ?
Don't take this wrong, but yeah.
rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms)
yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update)
There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fix
that repo,
You won't blame the food if the spoon is broken, or will you? ;)
The packages are fine, yum is having some trouble
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=290
At least some of the bugs are said to be fixed by the latest released
yum. You can also try apt/up2date and if you are willing to use a very
promising resolver in beta stadium go smart! :)
and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't
use it
anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get
the idea.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
3:06 p.m.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:48:48AM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
>On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved and
>>this makes yum almost unusable.
>>
>>Is there a fix ?
>>
>>
> Don't take this wrong, but yeah.
>
> rpm -ve --nodeps `rpm -vq | grep AT` (remove all "AT" rpms)
> yum --disablerepo atrpms update (update)
>
> There's been many an argument over what is, and is not needed to fix
>that repo,
>
>
You won't blame the food if the spoon is broken, or will you? ;)
The packages are fine, yum is having some trouble
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=290
At least some of the bugs are said to be fixed by the latest released
yum. You can also try apt/up2date and if you are willing to use a very
promising resolver in beta stadium go smart! :)
>and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it
>anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
>
>
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
> The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
>
>
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the
.at-packages
smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm
downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are
broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
/Herkild
5:11 p.m.
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 11:48:48AM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
>>On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 18:23 +0100, Marcel Janssen wrote:
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved
>>>and this makes yum almost unusable.
>>>
>>>Is there a fix ?
>You won't blame the food if the spoon is broken, or will you?
;)
>
>The packages are fine, yum is having some trouble
>
>http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289
>http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=290
>
>At least some of the bugs are said to be fixed by the latest released
>yum. You can also try apt/up2date and if you are willing to use a very
>promising resolver in beta stadium go smart! :)
>
>
>
>>and I've been right where you are...which is why I just don't use it
>>anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
>>
>>
>
>You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
>
>
>
>> The "AT" there might be lower case, instead...you get the idea.
>>
>>
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the
.at-packages
smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm
downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are
broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known
to me is yum itself.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
1:55 p.m.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild
wrote:
>Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the
>.at-packages
>smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm
>downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
>It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are
>broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
>
>
Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known
to me is yum itself.
Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but
a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/preferences from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/rpmpriorities from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/vendors.list from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and
.at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing
everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many
conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were
many more with many other packages...
In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like
.at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).
All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get.
Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the
intention is to break all spoons :P
/Kristian Poul Herkild
. o O ( I'm gonna downgrade first thing in the new year - which is about
3 hours from now in Denmark )
4:43 p.m.
On Fri, 2004-12-31 at 20:55 +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
>Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one
known
>to me is yum itself.
>
>
Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but
a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/preferences from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/rpmpriorities from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
file /etc/apt/vendors.list from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and
.at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing
everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many
conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were
many more with many other packages...
In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like
.at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).
All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get.
Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the
intention is to break all spoons :P
/Kristian Poul Herkild
. o O ( I'm gonna downgrade first thing in the new year - which is about
3 hours from now in Denmark )
This is the typical progression; Axel creates packages that become
incompatible with everyone else, but you don't see it until you GET
something from somewhere else. Using his packages alone is just fine.
Someone complains.
Axel claims there's nothing wrong with his setup.
2-3 people come outta the woods with detailed examples of what's
wrong.
He seems to get quiet, but doesn't change anything.
Peace again resumes.
I spent many nights hacking on the problem, and the result to me was
to just not use his packages. Since that time, I've not had any such
problems, even with the supposedly-ill yum, and all is fine.
People that I see as incredibly gifted at understanding RPM have
told him specific details of the problem, and they've not been mean
about it....and he could fix these priority things, but this is the way
he likes it. I'm almost to the point of thinking he actually _likes_
being the part of the world that's being talked about. Axel Thimm is
just one of his...names? Personalities? I don't really want to know
why he uses three different names- I just walked away from the whole
mess. Which is why you saw me illuminate the problem and then just clam
up. Otherwise the cycle begins again.
If you're having trouble with yum on that machine, just remove those
packages with --nodeps then replace them from another repo. I can
source you a very sucessful set of repos; I don't like anything beta or
'almost ready' but I do like things newer than directly from Fedora;
life's too short to spend it all at the terminal, ya know?
Hey- I've got a backup copy of those files; I'll just include them,
here. Take a peek at'em; make sure you agree with their philosophy
before you 'yum update' and let me know how it goes for ya.
Enjoy!
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fahrländer Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ: 5119262 AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5:24 p.m.
New subject: yum horror [Sorry, guys]
That last one was meant to quell this seemingly infinite argument-
not to inflame. I just want it over. For as long as I've known apt,
this has been a perennial issue that has been talked to death.
I had intended to send it off list to meet these goals, (as you can
tell by the attachment, which is a no-no here) but obviously I got
distracted before sending it, and managed to plop it out here. Axell, I
wasn't trying to air dirty laundry in public; I apologize.
It's humbling to know one's foot never gets so big that it can't
still fit in one's mouth.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fahrländer Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ: 5119262 AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:54 a.m.
New subject: yum horror [Sorry, guys]
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:24:42PM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
That last one was meant to quell this seemingly infinite
argument-
not to inflame.
That's a joke, right? Think before typing.
I just want it over. For as long as I've known apt, this has been
a
perennial issue that has been talked to death.
Probably by yourself.
I had intended to send it off list to meet these goals, (as you
can
tell by the attachment, which is a no-no here) but obviously I got
distracted before sending it, and managed to plop it out here. Axell, I
wasn't trying to air dirty laundry in public; I apologize.
Sorry, take your apologies elsewhere. I'm glad you did this in public,
I hate your FUD creeping along in private and making false facts
hear-say and then rumors. If you have an opinion that you think is
solid make it public or keep it for yourself. False accusations is
something I really hate.
It's humbling to know one's foot never gets so big that
it can't
still fit in one's mouth.
It depends on your mouth's size.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
10:15 a.m.
New subject: yum horror [Sorry, guys]
On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 10:54 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 05:24:42PM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
> That last one was meant to quell this seemingly infinite argument-
> not to inflame.
That's a joke, right? Think before typing.
Nope, no joke; I did a 'reply all' to get all the addresses, got
distracted by my daughter, my Mom, and a bunch of other things and
merely forgot to make a change to the address list before sending it.
Third shift makes you tired all day long...and usually, night, too.
It wasn't my intention to cause this row publicly; while I apologize
profusely for the public posting, I stand by the content.
> I just want it over. For as long as I've known apt, this has
been a
> perennial issue that has been talked to death.
Probably by yourself.
Uh, no. I've been through the use of your repo under apt three
times at last count, before giving up. I was too stubborn to listen to
the legion of people telling me it was a priority/epoch kinda problem.
I really like your packages, and other than these sticky deps,
you're good at it. But I can't run this course every time I want
something a little ahead of the rest of'em. Life's way too short.
Sorry, take your apologies elsewhere. I'm glad you did this in
public,
I hate your FUD creeping along in private and making false facts
hear-say and then rumors. If you have an opinion that you think is
solid make it public or keep it for yourself. False accusations is
something I really hate.
Too bad; you're getting an apologu anyway because I didn't mean to
defame you. This guy needed help, and I wanted to steer him from
something that had been trouble for me and others, before.
But this is a proven, reproducible, fact. I've done it multiple
times. I was using apt with RH9 the last time. And so many times, I'm
far more happy to throw up my hands and give up on it, rather than
throwing more man-hours in the rathole.
The original poster described the problem in the original post; are
you going to tell him, too, that the problem doesn't exist?
I'm sorry man; I just don't have time for this like you do. I love
your packages, I appreciate the work you've gone to, to bring them into
being (its a large and sweet list) but I don't want to get involved
with'em again. Sorry.
> It's humbling to know one's foot never gets so big
that it can't
> still fit in one's mouth.
It depends on your mouth's size.
(Actually, it's a relative statement...so...it doesn't.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fahrländer Christian, Conservative, and Technomad
Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net
ICQ: 5119262 AIM: WheelDweller
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3:50 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 04:43:11PM -0600, Brian Fahrlander wrote:
This is the typical progression; Axel creates packages that
become incompatible with everyone else, but you don't see it until
you GET something from somewhere else. Using his packages alone is
just fine.
That's false, ATrpms was the first repo to promote multiple repo
coexistence. In general the people that know about the repos know that
ATrpms is propably the strongest force towards cross-repo
comaptibility.
Someone complains.
Axel claims there's nothing wrong with his setup.
2-3 people come outta the woods with detailed examples of what's
wrong.
Please provide a valid example and no FUD.
He seems to get quiet, but doesn't change anything.
That's below the belt, please give an example. ATrpms users know that
true bugs are fixed as soon as possible.
I spent many nights hacking on the problem, and the result to me
was to just not use his packages. Since that time, I've not had any
such problems, even with the supposedly-ill yum, and all is fine.
Then please keep it that way and don't spread FUD. You didn't even
check the URL of the bug reports posted in this thread, did you? What
is "supposedly-ill" in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=140832#c4
http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289
The bugs was reported, identified and even fixed! And you talk about
"supposedly-ill".
Try to check the facts, don't produce FUD. You are hurting the
community.
People that I see as incredibly gifted at understanding RPM have
told him specific details of the problem, and they've not been mean
about it....and he could fix these priority things, but this is the way
he likes it.
FUD, FUD, FUD.
I'm almost to the point of thinking he actually _likes_
being the part of the world that's being talked about. Axel Thimm is
just one of his...names? Personalities?
I don't really want to know why he uses three different names
Which are the other ones I use? Bill Gates and George W. Bush? You are
totally insane.
I just walked away from the whole mess. Which is why you saw me
illuminate the problem and then just clam up. Otherwise the cycle
begins again.
You call this clam up?
You didn't write this right after coming from the pub, did you?
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
3:33 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 08:55:34PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 30, 2004 at 10:06:15PM +0100, Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
>>Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the
>>.at-packages
>>smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm
>>downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
>>It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are
>>broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
>
>Can you provide an example of troubles in apt land? The only one known
>to me is yum itself.
>
Oh yeah.... I just tried to update 'smart' using apt-get ... This is but
a very very very very very short glimpse of what happened .. *LOL*
file /etc/apt/apt.conf from install of
atrpms-package-config-91-1.rhfc3.at conflicts with file from package
apt-0.5.15cnc6-4.1.fc3.rf
That's not an issue with apt as a package resolver, but with the named
packages themselves (the thread was about bugs in the yum resolver not
allowing it to resolve the right packages out of a set from a repo).
REMEMBER: This is just the first few problems when using apt-get and
.at-packages... I didn't want to use to much of your bandwidth listing
everysingle issue... but you do get picture, right? There are many
conflicts but these were the first conflicts with apt-get ... there were
many more with many other packages...
In smart this can be solved... but yum and apt-get do not like
.at-packages as I've just proved (at least not on my machine).
No, there is a different policy of packaging. ATrpms prefers to
package apt and its config files in separate packages and this has
been discussed quite often and found to be beneficial to allowing
multiple repository coexistence (the apt package become vendor/repo
neutral and you can have any *-package-config package you like, ATrpms
itself offers two flavours already to prove the mechanism).
All theses errors came up when trying to update smart using apt-get.
Now, that's what I call a "too strongly flavoured soup" - unless the
intention is to break all spoons :P
No, both spoons and soup are perfectly working, just use the apt
package from ATrpms.
I mean I _am_ using half a dozen repos right now including of course
the Fedora Core base and updates repos. And I'm certainly not the only
one ;)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
10:22 a.m.
Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the
.at-packages
smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm
downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are
broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
/Herkild
This shows that the issue is with the .at packages, not YUM. The
issues were with FC1 and continue with FC3.
--
Robin Laing
10:54 a.m.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2004 at 09:22:30AM -0700, Robin Laing wrote:
Kristian Poul Herkild wrote:
>Axel Thimm wrote:
>
>Hmm... I'm using apt-get and I've had the same troubles with the
>.at-packages
>smartpm did solve it - to a certain extent - but right now I'm
>downgrading from .at-packages to packages more easy-going on my system.
>It may be the spoon which is the problem, but if all spoons are
>broken,the soup may be too strongly flavoured :P (sorry for that one)
>
>/Herkild
>
This shows that the issue is with the .at packages, not YUM. The
issues were with FC1 and continue with FC3.
Makes me wonder how > 10.000 apt users daily have no issues with the
same set of packages ...
apt seems to be a pretty solid spoon I guess ;)
The yum bugs are known, reported on various bugzilla's including
ATrpms and Red Hat, and there was an upstream yum release to resolve
some of them. What more do you need to believe this are (or were if
you upgraded yum to updates-testing) yum bugs?
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
3:59 p.m.
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 14:57, Axel Thimm wrote:
> and I've been right where you are...which is why I just
don't use it
> anymore. Google the wars and rumors of wars...but don't bother.
You mean the wars against bugs? ;)
I suspect the reference was to packages that obsolete other packager's
equivalent packages... I thought I saw some recent rumors about
things converging at fedora extras. Is something going on there?
---
Les Mikesell
les(a)futuresource.com
12:34 p.m.
Marcel Janssen said:
Hi,
When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved
and this makes yum almost unusable.
Is there a fix ?
There have been reports in the archives that the version of yum in
updates-testing works better with file dependencies (which for what ever
reason seems to affect ATrpms disproportionately).
--
William Hooper
11:10 a.m.
>
> When trying yum with ATrpms, I find that dependencies get not resolved
> and this makes yum almost unusable.
>
> Is there a fix ?
There have been reports in the archives that the version of yum in
updates-testing works better with file dependencies (which for what ever
reason seems to affect ATrpms disproportionately).
Hi list,
First, BEST WISHES FOR THE 2005 to all fedora-users whenever it starts
wherever you all are...
Now, simply to say (see like facts, not consider insane criticism..)
that I had some dependencies problems too by trying to update or install
packages both with yum as apt-get when using ATrpms repo, but never
REPORTED that since I just commented out again its lines in the /etc
configuration files, then the system recovered again its package
consistency.
*Before, when using FC1 I chose as ADDITIONAL repositories the dag,
freshrpms, dries and newrpms ones. Well, not exactly "I chose",
simply...one day, I ran into dag's repo, learnt what a hell was that...,
follow its instructions, and added it. Then would come the others. But
adding ATrpms (the last one) I experienced some problems, so -and
although this one was announced as "compatible" with the another ones-,
I simply removed it from the list. "Never mind, newbie problems...", and
I didn't give to it major importance* since I didn't want to complicate
things on the system because of that.
*Then when using FC3 (my next big step...;-) I chose (this time yes...)
to have again the same "compatible-group" of repos than before, but
without adding the ATrpms one in prevention; For several days,
everything worked like a charm, but giving me a new chance with ATrpms
again, finally added it (I was interested in some rpm packages like
skencil). There started those mentioned problems, with both yum and apt
(this one gave me some additional info in its warnings about the
possible origin of the problem and how i could correct the situation, I
did it (don't remember the option to type that apt suggested..) I have
to say that revert to the previous stage was easy. Of course, I had to
remove skencil by hand if I wanted that the system was updated whenever
I wanted it.
There is no criticism at all, simply I'm not reluctant to play with some
things if I can avoid it.
Cheers
* Is that said in that way in English ??? Ummm...apologies for my
English.., I think it's becoming worse and worse by the time. I hope not
to destroy too much its syntaxis, I feel that..:-)
P.S. (Now or never..) Many thanks to all those people that in some way
or another are contributing with their time and effort to the Fedora
project in particular, and Linux in general.
Cheers again,
Daniel Rodríguez
7063
days inactive
7065
days old
21 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Axel Thimm -
Brian Fahrlander -
korgull -
Kristian Poul Herkild -
Les Mikesell -
M Daniel R M -
Robin Laing -
William Hooper