ATrpms Real Issues

[Axel Thimm]

On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 10:24:07AM -0500, Temlakos wrote:
> 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 good is as good as the stable. In the last months I stopped
differentiating between good and stable, so each package in stable is
also in good (this was done after some discussion on repo-coord, where
three stability classes were considered enough).

I.e. at-good is deprecated and simply mirrors at-stable.

> 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.

Sound like the pango w/o matching glib2 issue in at-testing (pango was
in at-testing, glib2 in at-bleeding). So only at-testing users were
affected. Quite the contrary to the anticipated stability level of
at-bleeding vs at-testing.

> 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?

Of course. The ancient compatibility bridge was created between
freshrpms, dag, newrpms and ATrpms, then kde-redhat, PlanetCCRMA,
NyQuist, Dries etc. joined. All these repos are more or less committed
to keeping up compatibility. They also have a common bugzilla at
bugzilla.atrpms.net (check the components), where you can both report
bugs for a specific repo, or bugs that affect inter-repo
compatibility.

My recommendation is to use all of these repo, but not
testing/bleeding/unstable that some of the repos are offering (like
ATrpms and kde-redhat). Unless you want to get into the loop of testers
and/or developers (you are more than welcome to do so!).
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20050106/89b72cb6/attachment-0002.bin