Where we are and where do we what to go?

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 26.01.2009 19:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:59:43 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
>> On 26.01.2009 13:29, David Timms wrote:
>>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:53:46 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> - still lots of other 3rd party repos out there; users still run 
>>>>>>>> into problems as they try to mix incompatible repos; should we 
>>>>>>>> actively try to get more repos merged into RPM Fusion?
>>>>>>> Yes!
>>>>>> I haven't been on lists etc where users are having such trouble recently
>>>>>> (actually one I did suggest going with RPM Fusion rather than a
>>>>>> troublesome combination of 4 other external repos.
>>>>> There was someone on fedora-list recently that had trouble, as he had 
>>>>> atrpms and rpmfusion enabled.
>>>> ffmpeg vs. ffmpeg-libs as well as x264 currently cause unresolved deps
>>>> due to soname differences.
>>> Do you think RPM Fusion packages should include conflicts or similar 
>>> (with external 3rd party repos packaging) to stop an install that would 
>>> cause the two styles of packaging to both be installed ?
>> I have thought about that as well since the recent discussion on 
>> fedora-list (the one where mschwendt provided more details).
>> I tend to think it would be good to do. But OTOH: I fear that people 
>> don't properly why it's done and we might be the bad guys from their 
>> point of view.
> Bad idea, IMO.

As I said, I was unsure about the general idea myself right from the 
start, hence I didn't even think about details how to do it.

> It's only possible to conflict with NEVR tuples, but not with repo ids.

Well, I had more meant to conflict with packages like atrpms-release in 
general. But I guess that confuses and hurts more than it helps, that's 
why I abandoned the idea earlier. I wouldn't have mentioned it on the 
list normally.

 > [lot's of other good reasons why conflicting is a bad idea stripped]

CU
knurd