SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

September 2006

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailling list for Scientific Linux users worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 2 Sep 2006 12:49:57 +0200
MIME-version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Content-type:
multipart/signed; boundary=huq684BweRXVnRxX; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Subject:
From:
Axel Thimm <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-disposition:
inline
Comments:
To: Ioannis Vranos <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (1174 bytes) , application/pgp-signature (194 bytes)
On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 01:26:40PM +0300, Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> The normal use of repositories is to use only the preselected SL ones, 
> sl-base and sl-errata. Use one of the other repositories only for 
> installing some extra application you need and is not included in sl-base 
> and sl-errata.

this is strongly discouraged by 3rd party repos. Selective/partial
enabling leads to some packages being updated, but not their
dependencies, as the users would have to put all dependencies into
their filtering effectively replicating a depsolver's work. Also
dependencies change over time and therefore break any filtering.

The often made recommendation to filter repos leads to worse bugs as
they become dependent on the personal filtering thus every user has
his own set of bugs and any support attempt is futile. A typical
example is that users filter with include=foo and libfoo is never
updated along ...

I can only speak for ATrpms authoritatively, but I know the other
repos share the same opinion: Either use a repo unfiltered, or not at
all. If you start filtering things, you're on your own, please don't
even consider reporting resulting bugs.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net


ATOM RSS1 RSS2