On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 07:47:02AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: > >>You'll have to remind me why anyone wants different same-named packages > >>with differences the end user doesn't understand and can't control to > >>exist at all before I can comment on a solution about managing them. > > > >Let's assume no one wants that (I think I don't). Shouldn't you be > >chasing the repo that just created the duplicates instead of the ones > >that supported RHEL/CentOS over years now? > > > >And before you rightfully extend the argument - as far as duplicates > >between RPMForge/Dag, Dries, Karan Extras, CentOS Extras SL contrib > >and ATrpms are concerned: We're working *together* on eliminating > >them. > > And yet, conflicts have always kept popping up, Really? Did you report them? > and I can't see any provision you make to enable additional > repositories to exist Just wait and see. > The LFHS is the problem here, although putting applications where you > want them in the filesystem would make Linux as hard to use as the Mac. > Oh wait... IIRC you had some homework to do: Supply a dummy repo that doas all that you want and convince us thus that there is a problem this solution solves, so we can all follow your example. Go on and violate FHS, LSB and all their cousins, if your solution improves something these standard don't, we might all go for it. But until I see it I will respectfully assume that there is none (and will also not know what it was supposed to fix). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20070802/6b092276/attachment-0004.sig>