On 16/07/13 20:40, Yasha Karant wrote:
> Thank you for that clarification.  ATrpms was "required" to get support
> for one of the other packages installed and/or applications we needed to
> build (I forget which).
>
> Prior to your response, I located the offending RPM and performed a
> command line
>
> rpm -e live-2012.02.04-1.el6.x86_64
>
> No other dependencies were displayed upon execution of the above command
> (if memory serves, the -e flag will then respond packages A, B, ... need
> also to be removed and queries before proceeding if rpm finds such
> dependencies), and thus it completed.
>
> vlc 2.0.6 production then did install from RPMfusion, and now does work.
>
> Presumably, if I downloaded the development versions of all of the
> packages that vlc 2.0.6 rpm used, I could build vlc 2.0.7 .  At the
> moment, this is not necessary.

If you insist: but there's a ready-built version in 'testing' that is 
unlikely to be worse. I don't think it's likely to explode. You could 
always see if it wants to bring in anything that you deem insanitary 
before going down the DIY route,

And again, it's my understanding that you ought to be careful about 
mixing packages from ATrpms and rpmfusion.  They tend to cover similar 
areas of application. and individually do it well, but mixing does cause 
problems.
>
> (Etiquette:  does this list want start or end replies?  I have forgotten.)
>
> Yasha Karant
>