On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:19:01PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote: > My updated 5.2 has these > cdrdao-1.2.1-2.i386 > cdrecord-2.01-10.i386 > xcdroast-0.98a15-12.2.2.i386 > > Rpmforge has only the development rpm for the current cdrecord. > > I don't have atrpm on my system. You might check there and see if they > have later packages. Just be aware that many months ago that repo was > less trusted (IIRC, considered unstable and overlaid base packages if > you weren't careful), but that may not be the case now. Plus, since > then, yum priorities and protect have become available (can protect > against overlay of base packages). Hearsay, your honour! Well, there's some FUD floating around about ATrpms - I'm of course biased in the other direction. Suffice it to say that you will not find any report of unstable packages in the "stable" repo, and that since RHEL5/CentOS5's birth there were no "stable" packages replacing CentOS packages but one that accidentially was in the "stable" and was fixed minutes within the report (I forgot which package it was, just check these archives, it was O(1-2 months) ago). There is also nothing that has happened in the last months to increase/decrease ATrpms' trustworthiness. Maybe less FUD and gossiping. ;) Finally yum priorities and protect have been long enough available to show that they create more bugs than they solve. If you don't trust a repo, just don't use it. Selective/partial enabling creates per user bugs that no one can diagnose. But to get back to the actual issue: No, ATrpms has neither cdrdao, nor cdrecord, nor xcdroast. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20080827/3f80372b/attachment-0005.sig>