I would also expect that a good 3rd party repo would not forever require 
the use of that same repo to get updates for the packages which are also 
available on other repos.  In other words, a common package like 
freetype (deeply entangled with dependencies of many other key packages) 
need not require a specific repo in order to get an update in the 
future.  There have been many warnings about this on Fedora Core 5 (and 
others) websites, and I really wish I was aware of this potential 
problem before having to reinstall.

Ioannis Vranos wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Usually, when I search and install an application from some third party 
> repository, I have  all the repositories enabled in yumex. Until now I 
> had no problems.
> 
> 
> Also, I expect each repository to provide all the dependencies of every 
> application it provides. Isn't this true?
>