A query:

 > 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.

I agree with this, and, as rpmfusion seems to be working hard to be 
compatible with "stock" EL, I shall discontinue use of ATrpms in so far 
as possible.  Hence:

Is there a mechanism to

(1) identify ATrpm rpms that are present on a system

(2) find if the same functionalities exist within rpmfusion

and thus, using (if possible) the Add/Remove Software GUI, disable 
ATrpms as a source, delete all of the ATrpms rpms that meet (2) and 
replace these with those from rpmfusion?

Such steps would help to address the point raised.

Likewise, I again ask:

Technical question:  for a .so file or an executable, ldd will inform as 
to the required dependencies.  What is the functional equivalent for a 
rpm file to ldd, preferably an equivalent that will list both the 
dependencies in terms of actual files (e.g., foobar.so.3.7.19-mnj) and 
(hopefully) the RPMs from a particular repository (e.g., SL, rpmfusion, 
etc., depending upon the distribution that supplied the RPM) that supply 
such files?

Yasha Karant

On 07/16/2013 01:12 PM, John Pilkington wrote:
> 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
>>