Another funny update?

[JD]

On 06/16/2010 01:13 PM, Kevin Martin wrote:
>
> On 06/15/2010 10:24 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote:
>    
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:22:21 -0500 Kevin Martin<kevintm at ameritech.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>      
>>> On 06/15/2010 04:05 PM, David Boles wrote:
>>>
>>>        
>>>> On 6/15/2010 4:35 PM, Kevin Martin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>>>> On 06/15/2010 02:30 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 7:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III<bruno at wolff.to>  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I used to use kmod-nvidia(-PAE) and what I used to do was:
>>>>>> yum check-update
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then if there was a kernel but no kmod update listed then I did an
>>>>>> update excluding the kernel -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Later in the day do it again and if the kmod is then available do a
>>>>>> complete update -
>>>>>> Is that so difficult?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also used to use akmod-nvidia and found after some trial and error
>>>>>> that there was no -PAE version whereas there was a -PAE version of
>>>>>> kmod-nvidia-PAE so one had to be a little careful about exactly which
>>>>>> package to use!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>> Not so difficult, just seems like it should be unnecessary.  If there
>>>>> are dependencies in installed components that will be broken by an
>>>>> update then the update shouldn't be offered/shown by yum/packagekit
>>>>> until the an updated dependency is satisfied (that sounds odd to me but
>>>>> I hope you understand what I mean).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> Fedora provides you, free of charge, a perfectly good, working,
>>>> operating system. And they maintain that system. As provided.
>>>>
>>>> You modified it by adding a package, or packages, from a non Fedora
>>>> site(s). Fedora provided improvements and bug fixes for the system that
>>>> they provide and maintain that 'broke' when you modified that system?
>>>>
>>>> You modified your system. So you should fix it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> This has nothing to do with "who broke what".  This has everything to do
>>> with attempting to make Fedora, and other Linux variants, mainstream
>>> enough for the common person to use.  Your attitude is why Microsoft,
>>> and to a lesser extent Apple, own the desktop...while Microsoft software
>>> and patches are by no means the end-all-be-all of stability, from an
>>> end-users point of view it's certainly more straight forward than what
>>> we're discussing here.  While I applaud Fedora's attempt to not include
>>> closed-source software components, it *does* allow for the availability
>>> of secondary repositories that *do* make closed-source drivers available
>>> (using the same install mechanism that is used to install "Fedora
>>> approved and included" packages) and there should be an effort made to
>>> make sure that the tool is smart enough to handle the dependencies
>>> system-wide.  If not, then take Apples approach and close the door on
>>> secondary repos and have complete control over what gets installed on a
>>> machine.  The fact of the matter is, it's a good thing that there are
>>> these secondary repos out there to provide much needed "other"
>>> software...if it weren't for those repos, frankly, Fedora would be even
>>> less widely used than it is today.
>>>
>>> Kevin
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>        
>> Just a minor point: Apple's os's work only on very specific h/w.
>> Besides, you paid for the privilege of having your h/w and s/w dictated.
>>
>> But why are we paying so much attention to the OP again?
>>
>> Ranjan
>>
>>      
> Yes, that's true.  And they control the software (which is apparently
> what the person I last responded to thinks Fedora does/should do since
> he's obviously against the use of software from non-Fedora controlled
> sites and/or the ability for software on Fedora sites and non-Fedora
> sites to play nice together and understand inter-dependencies that may
> occur).
>
> Kevin
>    

Seems to me this is a moot point.
Each distro, and in fact each repo, builds it's packages which end up in 
some or many cases with different required dependencies from same 
package built on some other repo or distro - depending on what was 
installed on the system(s) where the provided packages were built.
I think it is really not possible for every repo and package out there 
to have 100% "playability" on every linux distro.
What I have done in the past is build the needed package from source rpm 
on my system and install it. The problems that can arise later is when I 
update the system, and some package that needs to be updated is flagged 
as needed by what I built and installed (and not available in binary 
form from Fedora repo), then my update fails. But then that's life. You 
have to take credit as well as blame for what you do.

Cheers,

JD