ATrpms Real Issues

[Temlakos]

On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 15:37 +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Not really a misuse, but why did you enable at-testing? The default is
> to use at-stable. at-testing and at-bleeding are not expected to
> contain bug-free packages and are expected to be run by people willing
> to report bugs on ATrpms' bugzilla and/or ATrpms' lists. They are not
> considered for general consumption, just compare them to Fedora test
> and rawhide releases.

Thank you, Axel, for your reply.

You mentioned the stable repo--why not the "good" one?

The most specific problems I ran into concerned yum. Until the big
blowup, I was using "yum20," as "yum" had to be removed. Once I had to
remove GnuCash, though I was able to re-install it later. The big
blowup, that forced me to reformat my machine, involved the removal of
some libraries--I forget which package--and at the end of it, my entire
X configuration was hosed and I *could not* operate at runlevel 5.

The particular repos I use now are dag, dries, freshrpms, and newrpms.
For reasons known only to Dag Wiers (perhaps he can comment?), the
atrpms.list file that he supplies with his version of apt and synaptic
are all commented out--including at-stable. (The repos he specifically
recommends *against* are fedora.us and rpm.livna, not any of the at's.)

So--in an effort to resolve the issue--do you recommend that I enable
at-stable (but not any of your other repo's) in addition to dag, dries,
freshrpms, and newrpms? AFAYK, is that a good mix? And--is at-good a
safe repo to mix in with the above?

-- 
Temlakos <temlakos at gmail.com>