SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: SL vs. RPMForge repo
From:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 18 May 2011 17:00:22 +0100
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (24 lines) 
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Orion Poplawski wrote:

> On 04/13/2011 02:00 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>> 
>> Personally ELRepo and RPMforge are my first choices, and I find Adobe is
>> pretty safe. If I can't find what I'm looking for there I will venture 
>> (with
>> extra caution) to EPEL and finally ATrpms.
>> 
>> Phil
>
> Just curious - why do you feel the need to treat EPEL with extra caution?  I 
> happen to have reversed feeling about EPEL/RPMforge.  I note that out of the 
> box RPMforge will replace some system packages (perhaps without any 
> problems), something EPEL avoids.

I believe that RPMForge does not do this in SL6 - they have split
there stuff into two repos - rpmforge and rpmforge-extras
one which updates existing SL packages and one with only new packages.

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[log in to unmask]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

ATOM RSS1 RSS2